Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Barking Corporation Bill,

Cardiff Extension Bill,

Sheffield Corporation Bill,

Wandsworth and District Gas Bill,

West Ham Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

London Passenger Transport Board Bill,

As amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

Orders of the Day — SHEEP STOCKS VALUATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Determination by Land Court of questions as to value of sheep stock.)

(1) Any question or difference as to the price or value of sheep stock required in terms of any lease (whether entered into before or after the passing of this Act) to be taken over at the termination of the tenancy by the landlord or incoming tenant, may, if both partial agree, in lieu of being determined in the manner provided in the lease, be determined by the Land Court, and the Land Court shall, on the joint application of the parties, determine such question or difference accordingly.

(2) The provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, with regard to the Land Court shall, with any necessary modifications, apply for the purpose of the determination of any such question or difference as aforesaid in like manner as those provisions apply for the purpose of the determination by the Land Court of matters referred to them under those Acts.—[Mr. Elliot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.7 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It will be remembered by those hon. Members who were present at the Debates in the Standing Committee that the question was raised as to whether it would not be convenient to carry out the suggestion of the Kinross Committee and make it optional for the Land Court to act as an arbiter in these disputes. That point was raised particularly by the right hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), and we undertook to do something in the matter between then and the Report stage. It appears that this proposal, if left on an optional basis, would command the respect both of landlords and tenants.

11.8 a.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: Speaking for my hon. Friends behind me, I welcome this new Clause. It meets the desire which we expressed on the Committee stage, and it is also in conformity with the recommendation of the Kinross Committee. I

think that this will be a very important Section of the Bill, bringing in for the first time valuers of great experience, and bringing in a public body. The Kinross Committee said that the decisions of the arbiters, if supported by the Scottish Land Court, would command general respect.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Submission of questions of law for decision of sheriff.)

11.10 a.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, to leave out "whether."
This is one of a group of Amendments intended to make the new procedure under Clause 2 applicable only in the case of future leases. During the Committee stage, an Amendment was carried making the procedure applicable to new leases or to existing leases, and this differed from the Bill as originally drafted, where the procedure applied only to future leases. The Committee discussed the matter for some time, and I think I may say it was rather critical of the proposal. In subsequent discussions with those concerned, notably with the breeding societies, it was found that there was a great deal of apprehension lest this should open the door to legal disputes, which certainly would be the last thing that any of us would wish to do in this Measure.
Accordingly, I think it would be wise if the promoters of the Bill could see their way to accept these Amendments, so that, although we leave Clause 1 to apply both to existing leases and to future leases, the procedure under Clause 2, which might involve an appeal to the Courts, would be confined to future leases only. Future leases would then be drawn in the knowledge that such an appeal might be made on questions of law, and that would give those who undertook the obligations a clear understanding of the possible new development of an appeal in law to the sheriff, which they certainly had not in mind in connection with the old leases.

Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew: On behalf of the promoters of the Bill, I am glad to accept these Amendments, which, I think, will improve the Bill.

11.12 a.m.

Mr. Johnston: These Amendments represent a rather remarkable achievement on the part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Sir C. MacAndrew). In the Committee upstairs he insisted that it was not a dangerous practice to interfere with existing contracts, a remarkable statement coming from an hon. Member opposite. I think it will be remembered that it was I and my hon. Friends who warned the Government as to the dangers in which they might land themselves if they proceeded by legislation to interfere with existing contracts, but despite our warnings on these matters, the revolutionary gentleman from Ayrshire insisted on interfering with existing contracts. As a result of the gentle persuasion of the Secretary of State for Scotland, he has now seen fit to go back to his old conservative ways, and in this matter I think he is right. Probably a great deal of litigation would arise from the Clause as it now stands, and as we do not want unnecessary litigation, we are ready to accept the Amendments of the Secretary of State.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 1, line 21, leave out "before or."—[Mr. Elliot.]

11.13 a.m.

Mr. Elliot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where any question is submitted in pursuance of sub-section (1) of this section for the decision of the sheriff, and the arbiter is satisfied that, whatever the decision on the question may be, the sum ultimately to be found due will be not less than a particular amount, it shall be lawful for the arbiter, pending the decision of such question, to make an order directing payment to the outgoing tenant of such sum, not exceeding that amount, as the arbiter may think fit, to account of the sum that may ultimately be awarded.
This Amendment is to meet a point which arose during the discussions in Committee, when it was emphasized that the whole transaction might be held up pending one or two appeals, whereas the outgoing tenant would obviously desire to realise as much as possible of his capital, since he would almost certainly be going to continue in the same business and would wish to take over some other sheep stock somewhere else. This Amendment empowers the arbiter to make an order directing the payment to the

outgoing tenant of some interim sum. The only question which arose was whether that sum should be a fixed payment of, say, 95 per cent. or whether it should be left to the discretion of the arbiter. I think it more suitable that it should be left to his discretion.

Mr. Johnston: I entirely agree with the views expressed by the Secretary of State for Scotland, and I think this is a very wise provision.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

11.14 a.m.

Mr. Johnston: There is one point on which, I think, we ought to have some explanation from the Secretary of State for Scotland before we allow this Bill to be read the Third time. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Kinross Committee made three recommendations. Two of them have been acted upon, but the third, for some reason unknown to me, has been avoided by the Government. That recommendation, which was made unanimously, dealt with the date of termination of leases for sheep stock farms. The recommendation was that these leases should run from autumn to autumn, and not from Whitsuntide to Whitsuntide. The reason given by the committee for that recommendation was that if the leases ran from autumn to autumn, the outgoing tenant would have disposed of his lambs prior to the cancellation of the lease and a troublesome part of valuation would automatically disappear. There may be a good reason why the Secretary of State and the promoters of the Bill have not adopted that suggestion. It is true that the committee's recommendation was that this should be done in future, voluntarily, by landowners and sheep farmers, but surely this Bill, if it is to be of much use at all to sheep farmers in Scotland, presents the chance of a lifetime for introducing some provision making it compulsory that future leases should run from autumn to autumn, with a view to avoiding the troublesome litigation and arbitration caused by the existence of lambs at the Whitsuntide period. I think we ought to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, or the promoters, as to why they paid no attention to the committee's recommendation on that point.

11.17 a.m.

Mr. Elliot: In reply to the invitation addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman, to state why the Government did not propose a change in the law in this respect, I would refer him to the report of the Kinross Committee itself. I have no doubt that the argument which I am about to mention also influenced the promoters of the Bill. The first recommendation of the committee states definitely that certain things should be required by law. That is properly the business of this House and the Government. The recommendation in that case is that the law should be amended, and here is a Bill amending the law. The third recommendation also asks that the law should be amended and, again, here is a Bill amending the law in the manner recommended. But the second recommendation merely says that prospective tenants and others should seriously consider the desirability of changing the dates of entry and exit under leases. That recommendation stands in a separate category from the others. It is not a recommendation that the law should be amended, and I think it was for that reason that the promoters of the Bill did not import into the Measure any provision such as that suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. For my part I think that is a perfectly valid reason. A change in business practice, suggested by a committee of persons who are technically well-informed, on the basis that it should be carried out by voluntary arrangement between those concerned, is a matter which ought to be left to those concerned. I do not think there would be any advantage in fixing a statutory date for leases in respect of sheep stock farms alone. To do so might be embarking upon a new course and introducing a far-reaching principle. If the dates of entry and exit under sheep farm leases were fixed, it might be sought to introduce the same principle into house-letting leases and other forms of leases where nobody would desire it. I think the promoters were wise in not attempting to make this a statutory provision, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who has displayed so much interest in and knowledge of the subject, will agree with that view.

11.20 a.m.

Mr. Johnston: There is I think some force in the second argument employed

by the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that if this principle were introduced it might be imported into house-letting and other leases, and give rise to some difficulty, but I think he overstressed his first argument. If he examines the committee's recommendations he will see that the Bill does not follow the first recommendation, but definitely turns it down. In that case the right hon. Gentleman has brought in existing leases against the views and wishes of the Kinross Committee. While he does that, probably for very good reasons, he insists on standing absolutely and accurately by the exact wording of the second recommendation. I appreciate, however, the force of the latter part of his statement, and we do not propose to go to a Division upon the matter. We merely desire to draw attention to the fact that the first recommendation of the committee, on a very important point, has been ignored.

Sir C. MacAndrew: This point arose during the Committee stage, and it struck the promoters of the Bill that, as it would be in the interests of almost everyone concerned that leases should terminate in the autumn, the probability was that such would become the practice automatically for the benefit of farmers, tenants and landlords alike.

11.23 a.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I suppose it is all right to pass this Bill, but we are in a curious position. We have had no real explanation of the principles or Clauses of the Bill. Some of us came down here this morning hoping to hear one of those powerful orations to which we are treated occasionally from one of the leaders who sits on the benches below me, but we have been disappointed. I feel that as my hon. and gallant Friend who is in charge of the Bill is always so eminently sane, the Bill itself must be all right, particularly as it has the backing of the Government, but after one or two of the remarks which we have heard from the Front Opposition Bench I should feel easier in my mind if I also heard something from the Liberal point of view on the provisions of the Bill. The Bill, I am informed, is of considerable importance to Scotland, and it would be a great help to those who have to decide upon it if the inner meaning of the Bill and where it is leading us were explained. I realise


that the Bill is intended to clear up a difficult and complicated point, and if it simplifies matters so as to make things easier for agriculturists in Scotland, I shall be glad to support it. But I cannot resist the comment that it is curious that an important Bill of this sort applying to Scotland should not have greater backing from the right hon. Gentleman the. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), who is always liable to abuse us because we do not take enough interest in Scottish affairs.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES (EMPLOYMENT OF BOYS) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Hours of employment in coal mines for boys.)

11.25 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, after "ground," to insert "during a period of seven hours."
The object of the Bill is to remove an anomaly which exists in the coal mining industry. In the past it has always been the case that boys could not be employed on top of the ground during night hours, but that they could be employed underground. In the original Bill the prohibition stood at between the hours of 10 at night and 5 in the morning, but an Amendment proposed in Committee upstairs extended those hours from 10 at night to 6 in the morning. That Amendment caused a certain amount of uneasiness among coalowners and also, I believe, among representatives of the miners themselves, because they felt that it would perhaps create repercussions in the industry by upsetting the present shift system and also in a smaller way by upsetting the Saturday afternoon football matches. Since the Bill was considered in Committee, representatives of the miners have discussed this matter with representatives of the coalowners, and they have come to an agreement, which is embodied in this Amendment.

Mr. Alan Herbert: I beg to second the Amendment.

11.27 a.m.

Mr. Whiteley: It is correct, as the Mover of the Amendment has suggested, that when we were in Committee upstairs there was an Amendment agreed to which it was thought would improve this Measure. The original hours in the Bill during which the employment of boys was prohibited were from 10 to 5, and that was unanimously agreed to on the Second Reading, but when the opportunity came in Committee it was felt that that period ought to be increased so as to give the lads an opportunity of being out of the pit for a longer period than from To in the evening to 5 in the morning. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) then put forward an Amendment to make the prohibited hours from 10 to 7, but after discussion in the Committee a compromise was come to, and it was unanimously agreed that the period should be from 10 to 6. Now we have an Amendment which comes along and suggests that the prohibition should only apply during a period of seven hours between 10 in the evening and 6 in the morning. That is really taking us back to the original position, and we feel rather strongly that we are going to lose what little advantage had been secured from the unanimous decision of the Committee upstairs. For instance, any coalowner now, if this Amendment were agreed to, could take the afternoon shift right up to a few minutes before 11 at night, and as a matter of fact other coalowners might use the opportunity of taking boys in just a minute or so after 5 in the morning, so that in reality we should get no advantage at all from the Bill.
Therefore, while recognising that there must be some little elasticity, because we know that there are districts in the coalfields where the afternoon shift does not finish until 10.30 and because we know that there may be some cases where a morning shift may go in at 5.45, we feel very strongly that this seven-hours Amendment is wrong and that there ought at least to be a period of 7½ hours if these lads are to get any real advantage at all from the Bill. I hope the promoters of the Bill will consider that suggestion and accept the idea of inserting the words "during a period of seven and a half hours" rather than press the Amendment as it stands.
I want to make our position quite clear. We are at the moment having to accept what we can secure under the existing system, but, as miners, we shall never give up our right to press for the abolition of the legal right to work lads underground between 14 and 16 years of age. That is where we definitely stand, but to-day we have to accept what we can secure under the existing system of working in the industry. We feel strongly that the mover of the Amendment ought to realise the position, because we are not suggesting anything that could create any difficulty in the industry at all. Our suggestion of 7½ hours would allow the amount of elasticity that is necessary, and we feel that it would be for the benefit of the lads connected with the industry and that the House would approve of it as a step forward which ought to be taken.

11.31 a.m.

Mr. Tinker: I want to thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) for bringing forward this Bill to prevent boys working underground during certain hours. The 1911 Act stipulated that boys should not be allowed to work above ground between the hours of 9 at night and 5 on the following morning, but there was no such stipulation for boys underground. How such a position ever became the law of the land it is difficult to understand, but it did get into an Act of Parliament. For a long time we have been attempting to get it altered, but customs have grown up following on that enactment, shifts have been arranged, and boys have had to work, and we have always been told that to get this altered would mean extra cost in the working of the mines, that if these boys were displaced, the owners would have to get older boys and the cost would be increased. Therefore, we have never succeeded in getting the alteration made, but now we are arriving at the point, and I hope the Members of the House will not allow an opportunity like this to pass. Since that time the questions of boy labour and times of work have altered altogether, and although we might have accepted the position then, now that we have the opportunity I think we ought to improve upon it.
The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) tried to prevail

upon the Committee upstairs to make some slight improvement in the Bill, and a compromise was arrived at prohibiting boys working betweeen the hours of 10 at night and 6 in the morning. That is not as far as I would like to go, but it was a compromise, and I hope that now the House will not let that compromise go. The promoter of the Bill has brought in an Amendment this morning, hoping perhaps to get the Bill through, not having a grasp of the situation such as working miners have, and thinking that this arrangement would suit certain conditions. It is rather a difficult question, but anybody who will read the Bill will find that the Amendment regarding the seven hours comes in between and makes the whole Bill rather difficult to follow. If this Amendment is carried, we shall have in the coalfield, perhaps in the same county, boys going on after 10 o'clock at night and others not being able to go on because of the method adopted by the coalowner.
We must have uniformity in this matter so that we can say right throughout the country that between certain hours these boys are not allowed to work. If this Amendment is made nobody will know exactly what the time should be. I hope that the Mover will be prevailed upon by the opinion of men who represent the coal-mining community not to press this change. If he realises that we are so keen to get something uniform and to make the life of the lads underground better than it has been, I am sure that he will allow the Bill to stand as it is, and so fulfil his good intentions in bringing forward this Measure. I urge him not to spoil a good Bill by pressing the Amendment, but that he will on mature consideration agree to the point of view expressed by Members who know something about this matter.

11.36 a.m.

Mr. Lyons: As one who was responsible for moving the Amendment, around which discussion now centres, when this Bill was before Standing Committee A, I should like to make some observations about the position as I see it. I want in the main to endorse the robust appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). I took the view then, and I take it now, and I hope the House will take it to-day, that in this year of grace we should not legalise the working of boys underground at 5 o'clock


in the morning. I am definitely opposed to it, and I am equally Opposed to taking any steps, a repercussion of which will be that we have helped to legalise in 1937 the employment of boys underground at any place in the country at 5 o'clock in the morning. I say that without any reservations. The original Bill would have made this possible. I put an Amendment down in Committee to alter the hour from 5 to 7. That would have had the effect of making 7 o'clock in the morning the earliest time a boy could be employed anywhere. I took the view then, and I take it now, that that is a fair, and perhaps the earliest, reasonable hour. I was told upstairs that it would upset certain arrangements that were made for shift working and would cause a great deal of anxiety. I did not see why it should, but, in view of that, and to facilitate an overdue reform, I was willing to accept, and did accept, a compromise making the hour 6 o'clock.
My hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill—and I want to add my tribute to what has been said about his good faith in bringing forward the Bill—to my amazement in Standing Committee was the one Member who dissented from the unanimity there finally was about 6 being the hour to be accepted. I said then, and a number of hon. Gentlemen supported me, that if I had known there was to be any dissension by those promoting the Bill, I would have insisted on 7 being the hour, because I believe that there is an overwhelming opinion for 7. I see no real argument or expediency against it and nothing would have induced me to alter 7 to 6 except the fact that I was led to believe it was an agreed compromise that would help the passage of the Bill. The Bill is now reported to the House with 6 as the hour, and I say again that that is the earliest time that can be considered. I would much rather have it 7. The first Amendment put down by the promoter of the Bill was to take away 6 entirely; I was wholly opposed to it, and I would have opposed it to-day. That Amendment has, apparently, been withdrawn, and the present Amendment has been put down. I do not understand what it really means, but I see as a possible outcome of it that we shall have in place after place 5 o'clock as the legal time at which a boy may be employed to work underground.
I do not understand what the full purport of the Amendment will be, but I venture to assert that one of the results will be that 5 o'clock in the morning, the very hour I want to condemn as a time for lads to work underground, will be a legal hour permissible under the Bill. Whatever else it will do, the fact stands out clearly that this will be the legal interpretation of the Amendment, which will legalise the very hour we want to stop. I would like a little explanation of the position. My hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill said there had been some agreement. What does that mean? There can be no agreement other than the agreement of this House to alter provisions which are before the House, and which have been before it on every stage of the Bill. No outside body can be said to agree to a matter like this. I should like to know who agreed, after the very strong statements upstairs, that this proposal as reported to the House is not a practicable one. I listened to what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) just now, when he spoke strongly about the terms of the Amendment. I would remind him of what he said in Standing Committee on the Amendment which I moved making 7 as the earliest permissible hour. The hon. Gentleman, speaking with great experience, and with a knowledge second to none in the House of the position with which this Bill deals, said:
We could not possibly oppose an Amendment of this kind. Shorter time for night working by boys in the mines is, one of the things for which we stand. It is essential. Therefore if the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) presses the Amendment, we shall naturally have to support it.ֵֵ Our job is not to arrange the organisation or working of the mines; that is a matter for the owners. If the Bill be carried with the Amendment, I do not see why there should not be the ability inside the owners' organisation so to arrange the shifts as to make it possible for the Amendment to work very satisfactorily."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT (Standing Committee A), 17th February, 5937, col. 5.]
Those were the words bf an hon. Member with great experience and knowledge, and I should like to be told by the promoter of the Bill, who has purported to enter into some arrangement which would cut across the very provisions we passed in Committee and which was agreed to by the miners' representatives? I am not concerned very much whether this is a matter which is stressed by the mine-


owners' organisations or by the mineworkers' organisation; I want to say again, as I have said on other occasions in this House, that I do not represent a mining constituency, and that this is not a matter confined to those who represent mining constituencies. It is a question of great human policy whether we should legalise lads under the age of 16 going below ground at 5 o'clock in the morning.
We spent some time this week dealing with a great Measure for national physical fitness. We have spent many occasions dealing with other means of improving the standard of the stamina of the youth of this country. If we are going to legalise boys going underground at 5 o'clock in the morning, I do not care who has consented to it, it will cut across those very principles for which we stand. I am not going to support it. I was very much impressed by an observation made by the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), with whom on many matters I am in complete disagreement. He made a statement in Committee which is one to which the House might pay great regard. I am quoting only two or three of his sentences, and excluding a lot of his observations which went entirely to support the Amendment I moved making 7 o'clock the earliest hour. He said:
Parliament ought to regulate hours in coal mines not only for boys but for men, especially with regard to night work. I would remind the Committee of a statement which I made in the House last Friday. The Gresford disaster, in which 265 lives were lost, occurred at 2 o'clock on a Saturday morning, at an hour at which both men and boys ought to have been in bed. In the interests of increasing the safety of our coal mines I think we shall have to go along the line of compelling the owners to cease getting coal in the early hours of the morning, in order that there may be time for the mines to cool."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee A), 17th February, 1937, col. 13.]
That is a statement which is of compelling force, and in the light of those facts I think we should insist that we keep the Bill as it is. It was said in Committee that it would be difficult to make internal arrangements to fit in with these new hours. I am not saying a word now against the organisation and efficiency of the coal industry, but no one can suggest that it is now so perfectly organised that the adoption of this proposal would make things impossible for it. We have

heard from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a far-reaching scheme is to be put forward for the unification of mining royalties, and a scheme of reorganisation in comparison with which any rearrangement which would be necessary to make this Bill as reported practicable would be a tiny one. No argument against the change was really substantiated in Committee, and the case for it is overwhelming.
I am sure that the promoter of the Bill wants to make it as humanising a Measure as possible, and I hope the House will realise what are the implications of this Amendment, because, whatever else it may do, it does legalise work underground at 5 o'clock in the morning by children who ought not to be there at that hour. I am told by those associated with the coal trade that happily—I say that advisedly—the amount of child labour in pits to-day is negligible, and it is getting less. I myself, do not see why children should be employed underground at all. I would stop it altogether. The smaller the number of those so employed the stronger our case becomes, and the less opposition there ought to be to it. I ask hon. Members opposite who have a knowledge of the mining industry, and who claim in debate after debate that they can represent the interests of the workers better than anybody else—a claim which I do not accept as a good one—not to run away from this position because some people somewhere, I do not know who and I do not know where, seem to have agreed that the Bill should be altered so as to whittle away a vital safeguard. After all, this is the sovereign legislature, and it is for this House to make up its mind.
If the promoter of the Bill and those associated with him can give me no better explanation of why the Amendment has been put forward than we have had so far, I shall not support it. I want to see the Bill in the form in which it was reported to the House, and that is with the hour 6 o'clock in the morning. I should like to have seen the hour 7 o'clock, and I only agreed to alter 7 o'clock to 6 o'clock because I thought it would secure complete unanimity, and the support of the promoter and the Department of State concerned. Nobody is begrudging the promoter of the Bill the commendation to which he is entitled for


using his luck in the ballot to bring forward a Bill to effect this great change, because it really is a great Bill. It will affect only a small number of young people, but they are lads at the most impressionable period of their lives, and at present they are working in circumstances which are very nearly deplorable. Is it too much to ask the promoter to withdraw this Amendment, and to give the boys that broad measure of emancipation to which, I believe, they are entitled? I would remind the House that those boys have been no party to the discussion of this matter behind the back of this House Their views have not been heard in any negotiations which have gone on between those working in the mines and those who own the mines, yet in this House their interests should predominate over all other interests whether of mineworkers' or mineowners' organisations.
Therefore, while again commending my hon. Friend for devoting his chance in the ballot to a humanising Measure like this I would appeal to him not to limit the benefits of it too much, but to give to these boys the full scope which would be given to them by the Bill as it was reported to the House. It secured almost unanimous approval in Committee upstairs. And I would repeat that we might have gone still further with the Bill in Committee, because if I had insisted on my original Amendment fixing the hour at 7 o'clock in the morning, and had pressed it to a division, it would have been carried. The Amendment was altered to 6 o'clock only in order to facilitate the passage of the Bill, to gel the promoter into complete harmony with us and to save any acrimonious discussion such as might have delayed it. We could have got the hour made 7 o'clock, and nobody could have said that that was a wrong hour; but now that the Bill has come to the threshold of the Statute Bock, as it were, I appeal to my hon. Friend to let it go forward as it is. This is a private Member's Bill and he owes no allegiance in the matter except an allegiance to that in which he conscientiously believes, and I appeal to him to give those boys the security and the safety which they would get by the acceptance of the Bill as it stands and in which form I hope the House will accept it.

11.53 a.m.

Mr. Paling: I had not seen this Amendment until this morning, although I understand there have been discussions

elsewhere on this particular point, but I have come to the conclusion that it appears to be of a very dangerous character indeed. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) has told us that in Committee the idea prevailed that 7 o'clock in the morning was early enough for a boy to go down the pit, and with that view I agree, but it was pointed out then that it might lead to certain difficulties, because a good many pits start at 6 o'clock, and it was urged that it might be easier to make the hour 6 o'clock, and on the idea that there would be unanimity that hour was agreed upon. But even as the Bill stands, with the hours from 10 to 6 still in, if this Amendment were adopted a boy could go down the pit at 5 o'clock in the morning, and that would clearly be against the express wish of the Committee. If he is out of the pit from 10 o'clock till 5 o'clock that would give the seven-hours' interval referred to in the Amendment. In our neighbourhood there are generally two shifts and the day shift generally start at 6 o'clock in the morning, and the afternoon shift finish about no 10 o'clock at night, and I think a boy would be within the law if he went down at 5 o'clock on the day shift, and still be within the law if he were in the pit till in 11 o'clock on the afternoon shift. On the afternoon shift he would be still excluded from 11 p.m. to 6 in the morning, a period of seven hours. The issue is, therefore, between the day shift and the afternoon shift. The Amendment means that the lad from 14 to 16 would be excluded for six hours during the night from working in the pit. I do not know whether my interpretation is right, and I hope that the Secretary of Mines will tell me, but that is how I see the matter. It depends upon which shift the boy would be on. If he is on the day shift he can start at 5 a.m. and be excluded for seven hours, and if he is on the afternoon shift he can work until 11 p.m. and still get the seven hours off.
Working on the same basis, I see also the question of whether the seven-hours period is elastic. It is not only a matter of the seven hours during which the boy is excluded; he might be fetched in at 1 o'clock in the morning and worked until 2. If he is out of the mine from 10 p.m. to 1 a.m. and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., making seven hours altogether, would that still be permissible under the proposed Amendment? As I see it, it


would. The possibilities of the Amendment are almost illimitable. It is because I fear the danger that I am asking the Secretary for Mines to tell us whether the danger exists. If it does, in any shape or form, I shall vote against the Amendment.

11.57 a.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): As the hon. Gentleman has asked me two specific questions perhaps I had better answer now. May I first say a word about the Amendment which has been made in the Bill? The object of the Bill, as I understand it, was not, as the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) says, to solve entirely the problems of boys' work in the mines. What the Bill on Second Reading was proposing to stop was boys working on the night shift. On that shift it was to be impossible to employ boys at all. It is not the case that the Bill, as originally introduced setting the hours as between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m., was aimed particularly at the idea that no boys should work at 5 in the morning, as the hon. Member has just said in his impassioned speech, for in fact under the present law boys may be so employed on the surface. It was a question not so much of 5 o'clock but of the night shift.
Hon. Members who were Members of the Committee will remember that I said then, when we were discussing the Amendment which is now incorporated in the Bill, providing that the period should be from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., that I had not at that stage been in touch with the usual sources in the mining industry with whom I from time to time naturally discuss problems which arise in this House. Hon. Members opposite are aware that during the last year a Joint Consultative Committee has been set up in the industry consisting of representatives of the two sides. The House had accepted the principle on Second Reading that boys could not work on the night shift and had made the hours from 10 to 5, and the Committee had altered the hours from 10 to 6, and I therefore thought that the best thing to do was to ask the Joint Consultative Committee not only about the Bill generally but also whether they could give me any considered opinion from the practical point of view about what hours should be laid down in the

Bill, and whether there was anything which I could put before the House this morning.
I received from them a suggestion which I was able to communicate only yesterday to my hon. Friend who is promoting the Bill. The Joint Consultative Committee suggested that the proposed words which my hon. Friend has upon the Paper should be put in. Ten p.m. and 6 a.m. are to be left as the two extremities between which boys may not be allowed to be employed underground, and between those times there is to be a period of seven hours during which boys are not to be employed underground. That is to say, the proposal is to stick to the theory that the night shift is not to be worked by boys, but owing to the difference in practice which exists from area to area and from pit to pit some measure of elasticity is required. It appears to be undesirable to lay down a hard-and-fast rule that the limits should be from 10 to 6, not so much because of the effect this would have on the boys, who are no longer to be working on the night shift, but because of the effect that it might have on the working of the other shifts, the day shift and the afternoon shift. This effect, as I understand it, was what was in the minds of those who proposed the Amendment. The suggestion is that there should be under the law a period of seven hours in which, if I may use the phrase, pits shall be "boy-less"—no boys down there at all in that period, and that that seven-hour period should be within the the period from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.
The question was asked by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) whether it would be possible, for example, for boys to go down at 5 o'clock in the morning on the day shift and other boys to come up as late as 11 o'clock at night after the afternoon shift. The answer to that is "No, certainly not." The intention is that that should not be so. For that would mean that there were six hours only instead of seven hours during which the pit was "boy-less," and that is certainly not the intention. I have not been able to discuss this Amendment with the Government draftsman, but if the Amendment is capable of that construction I am prepared to say here and now that the Government draftsman, between now and the subsequent stages


of the Bill, will see that the point is met. It may be that the words should be turned the other way round and that the Bill should start by saying: "There shall be a period of at least seven consecutive hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. during which no boy shall be employed etc.," but that is a drafting point, as I understand it.

Mr. T. Smith: Is it not the case that if the Amendment be carried it will permit boys to go down the pit before 6 o'clock in the morning?

Captain Crookshank: Oh, yes, but there would be seven hours out of the eight hours during which boys could not be in the pit. The hon. Member will, no doubt, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the general practice to-day in South Yorkshire is for boys to go down the majority of the pits somewhere between 5 o'clock and half-past 5.

Mr. Smith: That is one of the things that we want to stop.

Captain Crookshank: I sympathise with the view of the hon. Gentleman, but that is not what the Bill started to do. The Bill started out for the abolition of work on the night shift, but now the hon. Gentleman is turning it round, altering the emphasis, and dealing with the time at which the day shifts should work. That is a very different point. The Bill dealt with the comparatively small point of removing an anomaly between boys' employment on the surface and boys' employment underground and it is only from that point of view that I am speaking to-day. In order to make that object effective in practice the suggestion of the hon. Member is that you must have some elasticity at both ends, because there is a variation of a quarter of an hour in one place, 10 minutes in another place and half an hour in another. The essential point, which the House accepted on Second Reading, is that there shall be no boys employed on the night shift as such.
If the point made by the hon. Member for Wentworth is valid, and the words are capable of the interpretation which he put forward, it would be desirable to see, if possible, that they are altered elsewhere. That is all I have to say on this Amendment. The inquiries which I made of the Joint Consultative Committee on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member

for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) resulted in unanimous advice, and I naturally gave way to it and gave the information to the proposer of the Bill. I do not deny that there is a good deal to be said on the point as to reorganisation of the employment of boys in the industry, but the Bill deals with only that small point. I have no doubt that measures dealing with that matter would receive a great deal of sympathy in all quarters of the House, but that is not, as I understand it, what we are now dealing with. The hon. Gentleman wants to make the conditions and times of labour of boys aboveground and of boys below-ground the same. They have not been the same in the past; the present law is ridiculous in its anomalies; and, therefore, I hope that the House will accept this Amendment, because it will remove one anomaly and one difficulty. As we all know, the path of the reformer is apt to be a gradual one, and it is sometimes necessary to take what one can get with unanimity rather than grasp at something else and get nothing. I hope that the explanation I have given will have cleared up the point which has been put to me.

Mr. Lyons: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has given an indication of what the Government draftsman might be asked to do in a certain eventuality suggested by the hon. Member opposite, but I take it that, even if that position were dealt with by words put in at the beginning of the Clause in the way that the hon. and gallant Gentleman indicated, it would still be one of the repercussions that boys would be allowed to go below-ground at 5 in the morning.

Captain Crookshank: The object of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to make it clear that the period of seven hours, which was the period mentioned on the Second Reading, should be a period during which boys should not be employed in the pit. As the Bill now stands, the period laid down is eight hours, but that does not, as I have pointed out, give the elasticity which may be required either for boys going on to the day shift or coming off the afternoon shift at the other end of the day. If that be the intention to which the House desires to give effect by this Amendment, and if it is really likely to have any such frightful consequences as the hon. Member for Wentworth appears to fear, then,


since neither of us is a lawyer or a draftsman, I will certainly have the point looked into. My hon. and learned Friend has asked whether it would be possible for a boy to go down the pit at 5 in the morning. It would be possible under the Amendment, but at the same time it would be impossible for any boy at the other end of the day to be in that pit later than 10.

12.9 p.m.

Mr. T. Smith: It is true that the object of the Bill is to remove an anomaly in mining law which has been well known for many years, but, if the House is going to accept this Amendment, I hope it will do so with its eyes open. If the Amendment is accepted, it will still permit boys to go down the pit before 6 in the morning. Some of us have had experience of going down the pit as boys before 6 in the morning, and we are not only desirous of removing the anomaly which at present exists, but also of stopping boys going down the pit before 6 in the morning. What happens is this—it used to be more prevalent in the old days, when there was more hand-getting of coal and when there were more ponies in the pit. The boy going into the pit at 14 years of age, being enthusiastic, used to like to get down the pit early, say at a quarter past 5, to get to the working place and get the tubs ready for the colliers when they came down later. If this Bill is passed, it will mean that no boy can go down the pit before 6 o'clock. What is necessary to meet that? It is true that on the face of it the number of boys employed in mining is decreasing, but what would happen would be that, where pits start at 6, you would either have to let the boys go down after 6—which, after all, is not an insurmountable difficulty, especially at pits where there are two shafts—or you could readjust the whole hours of coal-mining. It may be asked whether that can be done, but we had the same controversy when, in 1919 or 1920, we reverted from an eight-hour day to a seven-hour day. We were told then that it could not be done, but it was done. It was done by ballot, and I am pleased to say that the tendency was to make the hour for starting work 7 and not 6 in the morning.
If I may venture to state my own personal experience of mining life, I used to

have to get up at a quarter past 4 in the morning, because every day I had a 50-minutes walk from where I lived to the pit. There were no omnibuses in those days. Those of us who have had that experience want to stop it, and to make it impossible for boys to go down the pit before 6 in the morning. Some of us would like to see the employment of boys in the pits prohibited altogether, and, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows some foreign countries give us a lesson or two in that respect. We are hoping that we shall be able to humanise mining life to a greater extent than is the case to-day. If the hon. Gentleman will not withdraw the Amendment, and if the House agree to accept it, let them do so with their eyes open, knowing that they are still making it possible for boys to go down the pit before 6 in the morning.

12.13 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: There is one point in connection with this Amendment which has not yet been brought out. I am not a lawyer, and do not pretend to read Bills as a lawyer would read them, but I know that, when an Amendment of this kind is being put into a Bill, it is wise to look at all the possible ways in which it can be read. We have been arguing and assuming so far that the meaning is that between the hours of 10 at night and 6 in the morning there should be seven hours in which a boy may not work. That is the meaning which everyone has put on the Amendment. But it can also be read with an entirely different meaning. The Clause says:
No boy shall be employed in, or allowed to be for the purpose of employment in, any coal mine below ground between the hours of ten at night and six on the following morning.
As one who is not a lawyer, I read that to mean that no boy may work in the pit during that time for more than seven hours, but that boys could work six hours. If that be so, then, instead of there being, as we all intend, a definite period of seven hours during which no boys can work, it may be possible to read it in such a way that a boy could work for six hours during that period, though he could not work for seven hours. I do not think the point has been raised before, but I think it is one on which we need to be very certain before it is put into the Bill.

12.14 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: This Bill has come down from the Committee after a good deal of consideration, which eventuated in a compromise. There was a strong feeling in the Committee, which I share, that the hour of 7 should be accepted, but eventually 6 o'clock was accepted, and now we have the present Amendment. The Secretary for Mines has said that this Amendment is moved at the request or at the suggestion of the Joint Consultative Committee—

Captain Crookshank: I do not want to put the Committee in any false position. I asked them what they thought of the Bill and what they thought of the two different hours which had already been considered, namely, 5 a.m. and 6 a.m., and this was a suggestion to make it workable.

Mr. Griffiths: I gather that the Joint Consultative Committee have suggested that the Bill should be changed in that direction, and that they have suggested these words. Is that right? Have they suggested these very words?

Captain Crookshank: There is no mystery about it. Knowing the interest taken by the House in the Bill and knowing the change between the Second Reading and the Committee stage, I asked for the views of the Consultative Committee on the Bill, and in reply I received information to the effect that from the practical point of view, as they saw it, it would be desirable, in order to achieve the object that the boys should not be employed on night shifts at all, to have some words of this kind within the Bill in order to give the elasticity to which I have referred.

Mr. Griffiths: That statement affects our own people who are on the Consultative Committee and I am very sceptical as to whether they have agreed to these words. I can only think that the matter was probably discussed in a rush in a few minutes. I cannot believe that men who have given their lives to this service can have accepted these words. As the Bill stands there is a definite period, from 10 to 6, that is eight hours, during which no boy is permitted to work underground. As I understand the technical difficulty that arose it was this: That in some collieries the hour of commencing the morning shift is an hour before this, and that

it would be impossible for a boy to work on a morning shift if that morning shift began before 6 o'clock. That is the technical difficulty. If there were agreement on the point it would be far better to substitute 5 for 6 in the Bill than have the words of the Amendment, which are capable of all kinds of interpretations.
We are legislating for boys. Are we to be told that this industry cannot change the hours of the morning shift from 5 to 6 or from 5.30 to 6? I have fought all my life the absurd and inhuman idea of starting men at work at 6 o'clock in the morning. In South Wales the general time is 7 o'clock, and in my view 7 o'clock is too early. Let me put this to hon. Members who do not appreciate the matter fully. Old mines are closing. Whatever new employment becomes available it is at pits right away from the old mining centres. The tendency in these days is for men to travel to the pits by omnibuses and trains. The old idea was that the men, as it were, lived at the top of the pits, and could tumble out of their beds straight into the pits. Nowadays when new pits are sunk men sometimes travel 25 miles to their work in the morning and travel back to their homes at night. There are baths at the pits and they are able to wear decent clothes on the journey. But they have to get out of bed at least 1½ or 2 hours before commencing the shift. If you permit boys to begin work at 5 o'clock in the morning, as this Amendment would permit, those boys will be getting up at 3 or 3.30 in the morning. The Amendment means also that boys will be permitted to work on the afternoon shift until 11 o'clock at night and they may not reach home until 1 o'clock in the morning.
These are the days of mechanised mines. We were told this week that 55 per cent. of the coal produced in this country is cut by machinery. The whole atmosphere of the mines is an atmosphere of machinery and electricity. I do not think that any boy of 16 should go down the pits. Generally speaking, the night shift commences at 10 or 10.30 and goes on till the next morning. If the Amendment were accepted there would be overlapping; the boys would go on the morning shift when the night shift was still at work. There could be nothing more dangerous than for boys of this tender age to go down the pit in the early hours


before they are fully awake, to reach the coal-face within a few minutes of the time when a machine has finished cutting the coal. I thank the hon. Member for using the opportunity to bring forward this measure of justice to boys who are still compelled by poverty to work in the mines. Who would send his boy to the pit unless compelled by poverty to do so? These boys are compelled to work in the pits and it is the duty of this House to protect them. I join in the appeal to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment. I am convinced that it would be a simple matter to adjust the working hours of the pits to suit the convenience of the Bill.

12.23 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: If I can intervene now I may be able to satisfy hon. Members in all parts of the House. First of all I want to apologise to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) for not having listened to what he was saying, but I was at that moment having my Bill explained to me by one of the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Lyons) has said that this is a great human problem and that it involves a great human policy. I agree that it does involve a great human policy. Otherwise I, representing a place like Eastbourne, where the sun always shines, would never have dared to bring this Bill forward. But I yield to no one in my desire to help in the solution of a great human problem. The object of this Bill, as was explained by the Minister, is to remove an anomaly, and only to do that. As a Member for a non-mining constituency I would not dare to take it upon myself to reorganise the whole coal industry. My knowledge of the industry is very small. For that reason the object of the Bill is purely to remove the anomaly which has been discussed to-day.
As hon. Members have pointed out, the Amendment may not be worded in the way in which it should be worded. Nevertheless we all know what we mean and what we wish to do. If I give my assurance that before the further stages of the Bill we will look into the wording of the Amendment, and I will promise to consult with representatives of the Opposition, because they were good enough to support the original Bill, I ask the House to accept the Amendment. I

am very sorry that the controversy has been allowed to arise, because we all agree that the Bill is very necessary, and I do not want its final stages to be prejudiced purely on a matter of disagreement of this kind. I am not trying to reorganise the whole of the coal industry. I am trying to remove this extraordinary anomaly, which should have been removed years ago, and I hope hon. Members will be satisfied with that explanation.

12.27 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: It would be a very much better course to withdraw the Amendment and, if anything can usefully be said for it, to introduce it at a later stage than to pass an Amendment which everyone, including the mover, realises does not carry out what is intended. It is a very uncertain and dangerous Amendment. I think the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is absolutely right when he says that, as it stands, you could employ a boy in a pit for 6½ hours at any time of the night. If you prosecute a colliery company for employing a boy during a period of seven hours then the answer, "We only employed him during a period of 6½ hours," is a complete and absolute answer. If you wanted to achieve the object of saying that there shall be a period of seven hours during which a boy shall not be employed, you could do it by saying, "No boy shall be employed in any coal mine below ground during any part of the period of seven hours." Even then you would have the evil that my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Paling) has pointed out, that a colliery could quite lawfully bring half its boys on at 5 o'clock in the morning and let the other half on only at 11 o'clock at night, so that there would only effectively be a period of six hours. There is a lot of badly drafted legislation in spite of all our efforts. If we are to allow such an ambiguous Amendment to go forward simply on the ground that, while everyone knows it is nonsense and extremely dangerous, it can be put right at a later stage of the proceedings, it is making legislation more dangerous than ever.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

12.32 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: May I offer a word of congratulation to my hon. Friend on having piloted the Bill in the way he has done? It is a pleasant thought that one of the youngest Members, who does not work in the coal industry, should interest himself in the employment of boys in circumstances very different from those in which he himself had to work, and that the miners of the country should be able to understand that all over the country there are those who sympathise with their difficulties, even if they sit for residential seats in the South of England.

12.33 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: This Bill shows what can be done to help in these matters if you have full co-operation between all parties. Some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway have given their support and made very useful suggestions in connection with the Bill and, as a South country Member, with no connection with mining, I should like to emphasise very clearly what the Minister has said, that we in the South country are willing and desirous to help the coal mining industry in every possible way, and I congratulate my colleague, the Member for another health resort, on the fact that he has done what so many Conservatives have done in the past, taken a leading part in benefiting a particular industry.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

12.35 p.m.

Sir Robert Gower: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I sincerely hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will give the Bill his blessing, and I think that I am justified in saying that, upon the principles, every hon. Member in the House will be agreed. There can be no doubt at all that throughout the country unanimity exists with regard to the principles of the Measure. The Bill has already received,

so I am informed by the secretary of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the blessing of the film censor, Lord Tyrrell, and it is significant that practically the whole of the. Press of the cinematograph trade has said. not a word against the principles of the Bill. The Measure has been promoted and introduced by the Royal Society for. the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, with the support of the National Canine Defence League, and other humanitarian societies of the country.
The reason why it has been introduced, and why I am moving the Second Reading to-day, is because we are advised by eminent counsel that it is necessary for a Bill of this nature to be passed to give effect to its principles. The object of the Bill is to
Prohibit the production or exhibition of films depicting suffering to animals or in the production of which suffering may have been caused to animals; and for purposes connected therewith.
I would particularly refer to Clause I, which provides that:
No person shall produce or make, or cause or knowingly permit to be produced or made, or take part in the producing or making of—
any film, the producing or making of which involves suffering to animals; or
any film depicting or purporting to depict combats with or between animals, or the suffering, terror or rage of animals,
and no person"—
and this is important—
shall exhibit, or cause or knowingly permit to be exhibited, any such film, whether made in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
The Bill makes illegal the exhibition of certain films which for some time past have been exhibited in this country. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals naturally keep a very vigilant eye on all films in which animals are introduced, and I would refer the House to a film which was exhibited only last year. The incidents feature animals fighting as follow:
Small monkey, large snake close by. Monkey appears terrified. Before snake strikes, hand takes monkey away.
Hunters after gorilla. It is shot and killed and carcase held up. Wild dog shot at, carcase also seen. Leopard stalking hyena, fight ensues"—
A terrible fight I am told—
cries of the animals heard. Rhinoceros shot and killed. Animal seen kicking its last


Lion seen to attack hyena, and is seen devouring carcase. Lions after herd of zebras. Next seen tearing at carcase of one. Lion caught in covered pit trap, falling into net. Lion struggles and roars with rage. Number of crocodiles seen, shot at by hunters, one or two killed, seen struggling in water just before death. Fight between two snakes screened, victor swallowing vanquished. Slow process and objectionable to watch.
That is the type of film which we desire not to see on the screens of this country. I would also call the attention of the House to a leading article which appeared in a publication known as "Film Weekly," in the issue of the 27th of last month. This is, I am informed, a leading organ of the film industry. It says:
There is a short film being shown in a London cinema at the moment which depends entirely for its interest value on shots showing the trapping and shooting of wild animals … Several of the scenes in the film are so disturbing to filmgoers' feelings that they are bound to raise the larger question of the use of animals—and the torture or slaughtering of them—for the purposes of screen entertainment.
There have been many instances in the past of animals being ill-treated and maimed to gratify a director's desire for a spectacular 'high-spot.' Alligators and crocodiles have been used in scenes where the excitement has depended on the hero swimming for his life among them. The animals' jaws have been bound with wire which cut cruelly when they tried to open them.
Thin wires have been stretched across movie battlefields, so that charging horses might be brought down in spectacular falls. Many of those horses have been shot when the 'take' was over—because their necks were broken.
The facts of such cases are whispered in the studios; but they do no get into the newspapers. Only when human beings are injured is there a burst of outraged human opinion. Yet the indignation would be more fitting were it roused by the senseless killing of animals than the killing of men.
It is no facile sentimentality which considers the misuse of animals in films more distasteful than the misuse of men. The actor who is asked to endanger his life for a scene has the option of refusing and making the studio hire a stand-in or a double. The double decides for himself whether he will risk his life in return for the money offered. The stunt-pilot knows that he is endangering his life—and may refuse to take the chance if he wishes. But the animal has no choice.
I emphasise the fact that this article, which appeared in this publication only a fortnight ago, so expresses itself in referring to a film which it states is now being exhibited in this country. I think that I am justified in saying that there is no hon. Member in this House who will not

agree with me that the exhibition of the nature of the films to which I have referred ought to be stopped. There has been rather a long controversy upon this question in the Press, and particularly in the "Times." It is only a little while ago that the eminent public servant and administrator Sir Hesketh Bell wrote a letter to the "Times" in which he deplored the cinema films showing animals which were or intended to be exhibited in this country. I will not read the whole of his letter, but the following part of it:
Not for a moment would anyone in our country be allowed to make a public, or even a private, exhibition of wild animals in the flesh fighting each other to the death.' Bull fights, cock fights, and everything else of that nature have been prohibited by law. Why then should such things be permitted to be shown on a screen and in such a manner that no sensational detail can be missed? It is usually stated that such pictures have been procured 'in the jungle,' but there is grave reason to suspect that in many cases the unfortunate animals are more or less tame creatures that have been provided by the purveyors of such trade. It is a well-known fact that the majority of wild animals, in their native habitat, usually live in harmony with each other, and that they rarely kill save to provide themselves with their natural food. Beasts of different species hardly ever fight one another, and it is reasonable to suspect that the combats between a 'leopard and a python,' a 'monkey against three giant crabs at the same time,' are arranged by artificial means.
Pictures of such a sort that are now being provided and shown, even to impressionable young children, are of an utterly debasing character. They can only appeal to bloodthirsty instincts. Is this sort of thing, which is being imposed upon us chiefly by foreign purveyors of sensationalism, to be allowed to continue, and probably to grow worse, or are those responsible for the censorship of films going to do what may be possible to protect in this direction the further degradation of public taste?
I will also refer to a letter which appeared in the "Times" in 1935 from that well-known soldier, Colonel Sleeman, in which he states that he saw the following incidents in the production of these films:
(1) Hippopotami driven over a high cliff. (2) A wretched wart-hog compelled to be seized by a presumably starving lion. (3) A tiger compelled, by means unknown, to be mauled by a crocodile and enveloped by a python. (4) Exhausted and rare wild game pursued by motor cars and aeroplanes. (5) Caged wild animals terrified by fire.
It is unnecessary for me to pursue this part of the matter any further. I have no doubt that I have the sympathy of the House with me. It is clear that films


to which we object have been exhibited in this country and the powers-that-be have not been able to prohibit their exhibition or, at any rate, they have not prevented their exhibition. A few moments ago I mentioned one film and read at some length the details of what appeared in the film. When that film was being shown the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals consulted counsel with a view to ascertaining whether it was possible for steps to be taken against the exhibitors of the film, but we were advised that the law was such that we could not do so. I think my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary when he comes to deal with the legal aspect will agree with me that owing to certain technical difficulties associated with the existing law a prosecution could not have been brought against the exhibitors of this film.
One further point with regard to the exhibition of films. The film censor is not a Government official. He is, I think I am right in saying, appointed by the trade. He exercises certain powers but he is not in a position, nor is he entitled, to say finally what films shall or shall not be exhibited by the cinematograph theatres in this country. By law the last word rests with the local licensing authority. The censor may have refused to give his consent—I use that word for want of a better—to the exhibition of a particular film, but the prospective exhibitor can go to the local authority and obtain consent to its exhibition. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is advised that at the moment there is no law in this country which can effectively prohibit the exhibition of these films of which we complain, provided they are produced not within the British Isles. It is unnecessary for me to point out that the large majority, in fact the whole of them, have been produced outside this country. If power existed to-day whereby the exhibition of these films could be stopped there would be no necessity for this Bill. Having regard to what we have been advised we urge the House to give effect to the Bill.
May I call attention to Clause 1 (2), which says:
In any proceedings brought under this Act in respect of any film the court may, until the contrary is proved, infer from the incidents depicted or purporting to be depicted

by the film that suffering to animals was involved in the producing or making thereof.
If a film is exhibited in this country, although on the face of it the animals pourtrayed in the film may have suffered very considerably, if that film was produced abroad and we were not in a position to call the evidence of those who saw the film being produced, we could not frame a prosecution. There is this further point, on which we feel very strongly, and I think we shall have the sympathy of the House in regard to it, and that is that these films are produced abroad because the producers realise that they may be exhibited in this country, and therefore there is no deterrent to exclude from the film the objectionable features of which we complain. If the Bill becomes law and it is clearly provided that such films cannot be exhibited in this country a very great deterrent will be provided for those who are producing the films.
Several of my hon. Friends have raised points in regard to some of the implications of the Bill, and I should like to deal with those points briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle)—whose accident yesterday we ail deplore, and we sincerely sympathise with him—has pointed out that if the Bill is passed in its present form it will, for example, prevent the exhibition of films showing experiments upon animals to students in our medical schools, and the result would be that more animals would have to be experimented upon, because actual experimentation before the students would have to take the place of the films. We do not desire that such should happen and, therefore, on behalf of the promoters of the Bill I have agreed with my hon. Friend that if the Bill obtains a Second Reading that point will be dealt with in Committee. We shall have no difficulty in agreeing an appropriate Amendment.
A point has also been raised by other of my hon. Friends that the Bill might make it illegal to exhibit films of accidents which occur, for example, at race meetings such as the Grand National. I would point out that by Clause 1 (3) it is provided that:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the making or exhibition of a film of an event or scene, not being an event or scene organised or arranged for the purpose, by reason only that it depicts as an incident of that event or scene the occurrence of an accident involving an animal.


The House will see, therefore, that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend are groundless. I have this morning received representations from a body representing the theatrical and other organisations, who fear that if the Bill be passed it might prevent representations on the screen of what happens to-day on the stage, etc., and they ask for an undertaking that this shall not be so. I am prepared to give that undertaking, because the only object we have in presenting the Bill, and the only desire we have in getting it passed, is that which is contained in the Title of the Measure.
I do not propose to address the House at any greater length. If this Bill is passed into law it will be established beyond all doubt that no animals may be subjected to ill-treatment in this country for the purpose of producing a cinematograph film. It may be suggested that the law already deals sufficiently with that point. It may do, but the Bill goes further and provides that no scene shall be shown on the film which pourtrays the sufferings of animals. As the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals it is our great object to prevent suffering of animals either in this country or abroad. There is another point which one has to take into consideration, and here, again, I think I shall have the sympathy of the House, and that is that it is demoralising and degrading for young children to visit cinema shows and there witness representations of the sufferings of animals. It cannot be for the good of children or of grown-up people to sit witnessing not only the sufferings of animals but to realise that those animals have in all probability been deliberately subjected to cruelty for their amusement. Many educational authorities of note in the country have expressed themselves at one time or another against the showing of such films.
At the risk of repeating myself let me say that we are advised that unless the law is altered in the way the Bill suggests, there is no certain or effective means of preventing these films from being exhibited in this country. I appeal to hon. Members, and particularly to the Under-Secretary of State, to support the Motion for the Second Reading. I understand that by some it is believed that the law is at present sufficient to prohibit these

exhibitions. All I can do is to repeat that we are advised that that is not the case, and we feel that the exhibition of these films is so undesirable that there should be no doubt left as to whether they can or cannot be prohibited by law.

12.57 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) has been associated so long with every sane and useful effort to protect animals that I am sure the House will readily agree to give a Second Reading to the Bill he has introduced. He has put me in a little difficulty. I had prepared, as I thought, a rather convincing speech on this question, but my hon. Friend has practically taken every argument I had proposed to offer, and has done it so much better than I could hope to do that I feel somewhat under a grievance. I have also another little trouble. A friend of mine on whose judgment I had formerly put every confidence has called me a sentimentalist. That came as a shock to me, because I prided myself on behind a hard-boiled realist, who looks at things as they are, and not as I should like them to be. I want to prove to myself that my own conception of my character is correct, and also to prove that this is not a sentimental Bill, but a Measure which can be supported by every realist in the House.
Before coming to the details of the Measure I would suggest to the House that there are three general principles which should be borne in mind in judging the Bill and its effects. One of them is that animals are mainly carnivorous. They rely for their sustenance mainly on animal meat, and as they do not use humane killers there is bound to be considerable cruelty in normal animal life. No animal will willingly allow itself to be chewed up by a larger animal, although we sometimes see a cat playing with a mouse and gulls being cruel to pigeons. Cruelty is inevitable in the ordinary animal world. My second principle is that the normal individual likes to see a good fight, a good contest, although it must be quite clean, straight and above board, with no cruelty connected with it. The average Englishman does not like cruelty practised upon himself or to see cruelty inflicted upon others. If we are watching a boxing contest in which one of the con-


testants is obviously inferior and is being punished beyond the normal degree of punishment, we cry "Enough" and call upon the referee to stop it. Our nature reacts against unfairness and cruelty.
That brings me to my third consideration. We are becoming increasingly cinema-conscious. The cinema is probably the most popular entertainment at the present time and has, therefore, the most vital and powerful effect on public opinion. The cinema has made our girls, working and non-working girls, beauty-conscious and clothes-conscious—and a very good thing, too. The cinema has exposed the crime rackets and we in this country have made up our minds that we will never allow the crime rackets of America to penetrate here. They have shown us its dangers, and warned us against any such thing. The cinema has introduced us to new countries and old customs. It has shown us beauties of scenery which no education or travel has been able to show. Hence the popularity of cruises. Therefore in judging this Bill we must take into consideration these three factors. The Bill seeks to carry out two or three definite achievements. It wants to ensure that in the production of films of animal life only the natural activities of animals shall be represented, not the artificial activities and passions which may be provoked. We do not want to see emotions and passions of animals provoked in order to force them into unnatural and unwanted contests. The Bill also seeks to satisfy the humane demand that no unnatural or sadist tendencies on the part of people shall be gratified by deliberately showing them films which make cruelty an essential feature. We want films which will develop and educate and guide the humane instincts of mankind. We want to develop a public conscience against any tendency to cruelty. Those are the desires we seek to achieve.
I should like to make a reference to one particular film which, I confess, I greatly enjoyed. It was shown last year in London and was called "The Charge of the Light Brigade." I suppose there is hardly any Member of this House or of the general public who was not thrilled by the history, the gallantry and the courage, surrounding it, and of course it always pleases the British mind to see how well the British came out of the fight.

Nevertheless, we saw there some things which, on consideration afterwards, must have given all of us food for a great deal of thought. We saw horses galloping up hill and then for some unknown reason falling, and the chances were ten to one, seeing the way they fell, that they shattered their legs and had to be shot afterwards. It appears that wires were put up at frequent intervals, about a foot and a half above the ground, so that the horses tripped up, and some of them fell. The men who take part in these film contests are, like jockeys, taught to fall easily, but the horses have not that instruction. By the passage of this Bill, I believe cinematograph producers will be forced to find out by research other methods of getting the same successful cinema effects without inflicting on animals pain and suffering which is unnecessary and unmerited, and which the public should not be encouraged to enjoy.

1.7 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: This is a Private Member's Bill and every hon. Member is entitled to his own opinion on its provisions, but I trust I shall have the agreement of my hon. Friends on this side of the House when I say that this Bill ought to have a Second Reading and be passed into law. I hope the hon. Gentleman representing the Home Office will be able to say "Amen" to what I have said. There are one or two observations I would like to make, as one of those who does not know much about the subject, although I notice that we can all speak very eloquently when we know nothing about a subject. I think that the provisions of this Bill make a very strong appeal to the best that is in us. It is an astonishing thing that the House of Commons is always more kindly disposed on Fridays than on any other day of the week, and that leads me almost to suggest that Parliament should in future meet on Fridays only. I think all hon. Members, to whatever party they belong, will support this Bill, because it carries us a stage further in the process of removing all cruelty from the life of our people.

Mr. Ellis Smith: What about the children?

Mr. Davies: Generally speaking, those who are kind to children are kind to animals as well.

Mr. Smith: The means test.

Mr. Davies: I wish sometimes that a great deal of the sentiment of hon. Members towards animals could be transferred on occasions to children, but that is not the subject before us to-day. I think it is reasonable to prohibit the exhibition in this country of pictures of incidents that would not be legal here. I very soldom go to the pictures, and perhaps I may be pardoned when I say that the only pictures I like are the comic ones, and if there were a picture taken of the House of Commons it would give me additional pleasure in that respect. The film has become part of the education of our people, and there ought to be eradicated from films all those scenes that indicate pain and torture to animals. One or two of my hon. Friends have been saying to me, "Why not prohibit films showing heavy-weight boxing contests, because they are bloodthirsty?" I suppose the answer is simply that when men fight they are able to defend and speak for themselves, and in any case they may throw in the towel when they know they are defeated. That is not so when men are dealing with animals. An animal cannot speak, it is not on an equal footing, it has not the same power, and it has not the same brain. A man is always capable of inflicting any pain he likes upon a dumb animal. For that reason, there is a distinction between pictures showing heavyweight boxing bouts and those depicting cruelty to animals.
I trust that the Home Office will look kindly upon this Bill, though I am never sure of the Home Office under this Government. It is an astonishing fact that Members of Parliament individually seem to me to be very much more kindly disposed than when they are together in a party, although I do not know why that should be so. Hon. Members opposite support this Government, which is the embodiment of cruelty. Individual Members of the Tory party, such as the two hon. Members who moved and seconded this Bill, exhibit all the kindly dispositions that people expect of human beings, but when we put forward a proposal on any human issue, the two hon. Members feel the tribal instinct, and join with this cruel Government. I support the Bill, and I trust that hon. Members on this side of the House will do the same.

1.12 p.m.

Mr. Denville: I will not detain the House very long—[An HON. MEMBER:

"Why not?"] For the simple reason that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak—
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief.
I hope hon. Members will forgive me for quoting Shakespeare at this time of the day, but in listening to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) one feels tempted to do many things that one would not do normally. One cannot fail to have been impressed by the fact that the two hon. Members who moved and seconded the Bill admitted that on certain subjects they are experts. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) spoke as an expert on the art of boxing. What that has to do with this Bill, I am not sure; but if he is an expert on the art of boxing, he failed to realise that the example he gave does not always work out as he would like to have us believe. He said that very often the weaker fighter receives such punishment that the people surrounding him call out to the referee to stop the fight. If he were behind the scenes and knew anything about boxing, he would know that it is rather strange that there should be cases where one fighter is much weaker than the other, and that the individual who gets a jolly good hiding is getting what he deserves, and should receive a great deal more.
The hon. Member who promoted the Bill gave us some illuminating evidence of how these animals are trained and of some of the cruelty that appertains to the making of these films. All that one sees of savagery in the film world—and indeed in the entertainment world generally—is not as it appears on the surface. I will give as an illustration the case of a lion which, in a certain film, had to spring upon a beautiful and virtuous maiden who was lying asleep on the other side of a rock. As a matter of fact, when the lion sprang, it was a fortnight after the lady had left the district. Another case was that of a scene in which a tiger was seen to spring from a tree on to a beautiful horse and immediately after was seen making a hearty meal, apparently off the horse. The producer told me, however, that it was nearly three weeks after the time when the tiger actually sprang from the tree before it was possible to purchase


a dead horse to lay before him for the scene which followed. All is not as it appears on the surface. At the same time I am expressing the views of the entertainment industry in this country, including the film side and the theatrical side, as well as the Circus Proprietors' Guild of Great Britain when I say that I heartily support the Bill. We believe that if anything cruel or offensive is shown, it creates aversion and bad feeling among our patrons. We believe that it is much better in the entertainment industry to cultivate all our patrons, and we do not desire to have even one dissatisfied patron, because:
He who has a thousand friends has not a friend to spare,
And he who has one enemy will meet him everywhere.
I hope that the Bill will go through rapidly, and I can assure its promoters of the full support of those connected with the entertainment industry in this country.

1.17 p.m.

Sir Edward Campbell: If this Bill is going to do what it is intended by the promoters to do, it will have my hearty support. I intervene only because I think I am one of the few Members of this House to have figured in a scene of the kind which, in these days, would have made a very good film picture. If I may be allowed to relate a personal experience I was once in the jungle when an ape of the kind called the orang-outang or "man of the woods" suddenly appeared and bit one of the natives who were of the party in such a way that he had to eat his meals off the mantelpiece for about a month afterwards. The orang-outang then climbed to a very high tree, and I had to run and get a rifle and try to shoot him. I was considered a very good shot and I fired six or seven times, and was very much surprised that the animal did not come down. After the eighth shot he came down and it was found that he had seven bullets through his head and the natives at once grabbed him and proceeded to pull him to pieces. A picture on a subject of that sort I presume, would be prohibited under this Bill, though I have no doubt that my colleagues in the House would be very pleased if they could see to-day a representation of that incident 37 years after its occurrence. Even the President of

the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals would, I think, be willing to pay half-a-crown to see such a film.
However, the intentions of the Bill are good. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) struck the right note when he said that some films in which there appears to be cruelty do not, in fact, involve any cruelty. It would be a pity, for example, to interfere with films showing wild life, in which we are all deeply interested—even those who like myself have been fortunate enough to see it at first-hand in the jungle and have sometimes perhaps seen too much of it. Provided that the promoters of the Bill make sure in Committee that its provisions are not too rigid, I shall be pleased to support the Measure.

1.21 p.m.

Mr. Graham Kerr: I should like to speak on this subject first as a professional biologist—because this is really a biological question—and, secondly, as a lover of animals. I wish to do everything possible to diminish cruelty and suffering. At the same time, I confess that I do not regard penal legislation as the proper way to achieve that end. Education is what is wanted, and if the children of the country were educated properly they would grow up with an abhorrence of cruelty. The fact that we have to have great societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals and cruelty to children is, to my mind, one of the most dreadful blots upon our so-called civilisation. In spite of my sentimental feelings, I cannot support this Bill. The use of the cinema has become a great factor in biological teaching and investigation. My own department in Glasgow was one of the first biological institutes in the world in which a full-sized moving picture apparatus was installed as part of its equipment. That apparatus is extensively used. Its uses in teaching are various. In the first place, it gives access to the study of living creatures which would not otherwise be accessible, such as creatures which live in the deep sea or in the tropics or in some "un-getatable" part of the world. Only yesterday I saw Captain Knight's marvellously interesting and instructive film of living creatures in Africa. That film enabled one to see living creatures in their natural state which one otherwise would not be able to see.
The film has also become extraordinarily useful by reason of the power which it gives to interfere with the time factor. Among living creatures many things happen with such rapidity that the eye cannot follow them, while other things happen so slowly that it is impossible to detect any movement at all. Take, for example, the living cells of the human body. If you examine, say, diseased cells like cancer-cells with a microscope, although they are alive you can see no movement whatever. They might as well be dead. But it is possible to arrange to take moving pictures at intervals, and afterwards to run the films through the projection apparatus in such a way as to show those apparently unmoving cells in a state of activity. In that way you can study them, and that is the way that will lead us eventually to the full understanding of many of these diseases. There are other movements that take place so rapidly that you cannot follow them with the eye, and you tackle those by means of the cinema in a different way. You take pictures separated by exceedingly short intervals of time on very sensitive films, with tremendous rapidity, and you run them through the apparatus at the ordinary speed, with the result that everything is slowed down and you get what is called the "slow-motion" picture. In that way you can study such movements, for example, as the flight of birds.
There is one further point that I would like to mention, and it has to do with that very disputable and very unpleasant subject of experiments upon living animals. Many of us hate the whole idea of these experiments, and others of us think they are justifiable, but although we may differ, in these two schools of thought, on the subject, there is one thing that every one of us is agreed upon, and that is that the more we can reduce the numbers of experiments on living animals the better. The cinema film gives us a wonderful method by which we can reduce these experiments, because a particular experiment on a living creature which is recorded by this method can be run through the machine over and over again, and it can be studied intensively as many times as you like. In that way you can arrive at an understanding of the process that is going on, which, without this aid, would only be got by re-

peating the experiment on the living animal.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: I ought to point out to the hon. Member that the promoters gave a guarantee that such experiments would not be interfered with by the Bill.

Mr. Kerr: I am obliged, hut, so far as I took it, what was said was that it had to do with abolishing the necessity of showing such experiments to students.

Sir R. Gower: I endeavoured to make it clear that a representation was received by me from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Sir F. Fremantle), representing the medical profession, who asked that a particular Amendment should be agreed to by me which meets every point which my hon. Friend opposite has raised, and I have agreed to the insertion of that Amendment.

Mr. Kerr: Then I understand that I apprehended wrongly what was said before, when I assumed that it had only to do with teaching. I now understand that it actually covers the very important question of research experiments. Those are two points which I thought I had better say a word or two about, and there is the final point, which in itself makes it seem to be desirable not to accept this Bill, and that is the vagueness of many of the words in the Bill. There are words in it which it would be extraordinarily difficult to define, which could be interpreted in different ways, and which might be made use of to stop a great number of films which I think the promoters have no intention of stopping. For example, I remember, in the old days of the rodeo in South America, watching animals being lassoed and seeing them later on a film, and it was an extraordinarily interesting film, but nobody would say that those animals, when they were being lassoed, did not suffer. I have also seen interesting films of tarpon fishing, and nobody would say that those unfortunate tarpons did not suffer. Again I might refer to films of whale fishing. Such types of film might be prohibited by the wording of the present Bill, and on those grounds I feel that I cannot support it.

1.31 p.m.

Mr. Crossley: The hon. Member who has just spoken will, I am sure, forgive me if I do not follow him in the very


interesting scientific arguments which he has adduced, except to say that I do not see how any of them could be affected by this Bill. I think it is high time that some such legislation as this was brought in, though I think it would be very desirable to have some sort of inquiry. I do not know that there has ever been one, and it is difficult to know how much cruelty is perpetrated in the making of these films, but remembering two or three films in the past, such, for instance, as "Ben Hur," a film which drew an immense public and was one of the most popular films of its kind, undoubtedly the chariot race in that film caused great cruelty to the horses in it. Another type of film that I think of would be the Tarzan films. They seem to be in a totally different category from those films of wild life, and natural wild life, it may be naturally involving cruelty in some of them. Then there are films like that mentioned by one hon. Member, namely, "Moby Dick," a whaling film, and, because that involves some cruelty, to prevent showing that film with its great sense of adventure and wild scenery, to audiences in this country, would appear to me to be carrying it too far.

Sir R. Gower: It was our intention to deal with representations of actual and normal scenes by Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, which states:
(3) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prohibiting the making or exhibition of a film of an event or scene, not being an event or scene organised or arranged for the purpose, by reason only that it depicts as an incident of that event or scene the occurrence of an accident involving an animal

Mr. Crossley: Clearly, "Moby Dick," for example, does depict the terror of an animal, a whale being, I believe, in biological realms an animal.

Sir R. Gower: If a scene was constructed for the purpose only of causing representation on the screen, then, of course, it would come within the scope of the Bill. If, however, the filming was of an actual occurrence which was not being staged for the purpose of the film, it would not.

Mr. Crossley: If the intention of a film producer was to follow the whaling process in order to produce a film, that intention on the part of the producer would render him liable under the Bill.

Sir R. Gower: No. If a producer photographed something which took place

irrespective of whether it was filmed or not, the taker of the film would not be liable under the Bill.

Mr. Crossley: The intention would be that it should be shown to an audience.

Sir R. Gower: Yes, but the act of cruelty was not perpetrated for the purpose of making the film.

Mr. Crossley: I think that meets my first point, which was that there should be all the difference in the world between cruelty deliberately perpetrated in the making of films for the purpose of public showing and cruelty incidental unfortunately to natural life, and which gets depicted in scenes of natural life.

Sir R. Gower: The words in Subsection (3)
not being an event or scene organised Or arranged for the purpose
cover that particular case.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert): This conversation is very interesting, but I must remind hon. Members that we are dealing with the Second Reading.

Mr. Crossley: I apologise for provoking the interruptions. My other point is that it appears to me, on a summary reading of the Bill, that it is restrospective, and applies to films which have already been made. Retrospective legislation is almost always undesirable, and I should be glad to receive an assurance that the promoters of the Bill will take that point into consideration in Committee.

1.36 p.m.

Mr. Groves: I have for years held in great respect the activitiy of the two hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Bill with regard to the prevention of suffering to animals, and I hope they will not be amazed at what I shall say about the Bill. I appreciate that hon. Members who introduce private Members' Bills do not have the advantage of the Parliamentary draftsmen, but I should like an explanation of Sub-section (3), which says:
Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the making or exhibition of a film of an event or scene, not being an event or scene organised or arranged for the purpose, by reason only that it depicts as an incident of that event or scene the occurrence of an accident involving an animal.


My desire is to extract from my hon. Friends who have brought forward this Measure a promise that this well-intentioned attempt at legislation shall not be used to impose further restrictions upon the legitimate entertainment industry and the exhibition of animals in circuses. I hope they will be able to assure me that an Amendment will be made in Committee to avoid any such apprehensions. I want to ask my hon. Friends and the Home Office whether we are arriving at a position in this country where we object to the presentation of a film that involves cruelty but do not object to the cruelty itself. There are many people in this country whose personal activity shows that they appear to love animals more than they love mankind, and I do not like that psychology. I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower), who is a very respected worker in the cause of animals in his capacity as President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, whether it is the presentation of cruelty that is objected to or the cruelty itself. I have always taken the stand that we should object to the act of cruelty, but we do not do so either in this Bill or in the House at any time.
I put some questions to the Home Secretary two or three years ago because I read in a paper called the "People" that they were looking for some Member of Parliament who would raise the question of cruelty in the Grand National. When I raised the question in the House, Members ridiculed me. I am old enough to know that all the best causes in the world were laughed at at first; they were "pooh-poohed" at the second stage, and "Hear-heared" at the third. If my hon. Friends are serious in their attitude towards cruelty, I would like to ask them whether they would object to a film of the Grand National. They dare not say they would, because they would find that the cinemas in this country would exhibit the picture a few hours after the race itself. There is more cruelty involved to both animal and man in the Grand National than in the average film objected to by my hon. Friends. Then there are fox-hunting and stag-hunting, and all those cruel sports which give pleasure to some people. It is not a class question, because many of our people are amused by whippet racing and coursing. Then there has been a recent discussion on cock-fight-

ing. The time has come when we should try to put the very laudable attempts to prevent cruelty to animals on a proper, straightforward basis. Let us make up our minds whether we are overloaded with sentiment or whether we are working and trying to convert our colleagues to an understanding of what is actually happening.
This Bill is not concerned with films of cruelty to germs, to which reference was made by the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Graham Kerr), because we would like to be cruel to many of them; nor has it anything to do with biology or zoology in the scientific sense, because this country, through the power given by this House, is responsible for the development of cruelty, legally and, in my opinion, immorally. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Sir E. Campbell) gave us an interesting illustration of the shooting of animals in circumstances which were justifiable, and that leads me to relate an experience I had in witnessing official cruelty to animals under the aegis of the Home Office. In 1929, with many other Members, I went Hendon. I do not suppose that the Under-Secretary has much time to know what is going on there, because he is involved in preparations for dealing with gas attacks. If you visit the Government factory or laboratory at Hendon—my scientific friend the Member for the Scottish Universities will be glad to hear this—you will see little calves strapped to a table, and muzzled so that they cannot make a noise. Each leg is strapped. After the belly of the calf has been shaved the surgeon comes along and makes an incision, and he is followed by a student who rubs in some pus. The animal is then sent back to its stable in order that this scientific cruelty shall be allowed to develop, and after a day or so it is brought back to the table and strapped down again, and the surgeon comes along with his knife and scrapes off this deadly, but scientific, poison, which is then put into a phial and sent to the laboratory and is eventually used as calf lymph to perpetrate the practice of vaccination.
I am not arguing at the moment whether vaccination is efficient or inefficient, but certainly it has been proved that less than 50 per cent. of the people of this country desire their children to be vaccinated. There is much cruelty involved in the process of producing lymph from these


calves at the Hendon laboratory under the authority of the Government. I have seen it and it goes on daily. If we want to employ the influence of this House to prevent the continuance of cruelty, let us have a fair, frank and open statement and tell the world that cruelty can be practised officially in this country under the authority of Parliament as long as it gets the backing of the medical committee of this House, and as long as it is under the heading of scientific research. As the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) has reminded us, these animals cannot speak for themselves, and at Hendon they take good care that they do not even make a noise.
This Bill gives private Members an opportunity to voice the opinion that at this time of day science should not engage in cruelty to animals, and then put forward the view that it is something which is inevitable and not preventible. I feel that I must take advantage of the opportunity which this Bill gives to cry aloud against the cruelty involved to animals in sports—cruel blood sports. As I was coming to the House a few weeks ago I saw a placard stating the number of horses which fell in the Grand National, and if hon. Members look up the record of questions which I have put in this House to the Home Secretary, they will see from his answers the number of jockeys who have been injured. One jockey broke his thigh and will never walk again. This sport not only involves cruelty to animals, but cruelty to men, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham must realise that it is just as bad in its effects, either psychological, physical or moral, upon the thousands of people who witness it.

Mr. Crossley: It is a grand sport.

Mr. Groves: That is a point of view. Sport is something which must be described and defined. I should imagine that some hon. Members here have read the story of the religions of Mexico. Here is a story which shows how times change and men must change with them. At the Easter festival in connection with the religions of Mexico the chieftains gathered at supper in the evening and the chieftain who was proclaimed the most valiant was he who had plucked out the greatest number of human hearts. In those days the more bloody the sport,

the more beautiful it was. Now the hon. Member says that the Grand National is a grand sport. It is not a grand sport to the animals injured, and it is not a grand sport to the jockeys, except those who win.

Mr. Crossley: Then how is it that the one ambition of so many amateur jockeys is to ride in the Grand National?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must ask hon. Members to try to relate their speeches to the Bill, and I cannot see what Mexican religious celebrations have to do with the Bill.

Mr. Groves: My reference to Mexican religions was purely illustrative, but the Grand National and other blood sports are depicted by means of films. I ask the promoter whether he is going to make an effort to rope in the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Anti-Vivisection League and the Anti-Vivisection Society, so that we can show a united front for humanity instead of cruelty. Then we shall be standing solidly together and saying to all Members, "Here is an opportunity to proclaim to the world that British Members of Parliament will not shelter themselves by saying that some amateur jockey would like to win the Grand National." I went last Saturday afternoon to see a football match. It may be thought that this has nothing to do with the Bill, only the cirema people were there. In that match an amateur team tried to win a cup. It is the ambition of all amateurs to reach the top of the profession, and to exhibit both valour and interest in the game, just as Members of Parliament always strive to get to the top; but in no sense would that justify cruelty. I could not possibly vote against this Bill because, in my opinion, it is another contribution towards the development of the broad human feeling against cruelty to dumb creatures. We in this country ought to be frank and free about it, because if people hate blood sports in themselves they must hate to look at representations of them on the screen.

1.54 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): We have had to-day a discussion which has ranged very far, from Mexican religions to the jungle, and included the re-


flections of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) on the effects produced on the temperaments of Members of this House by their party affiliation; and, tempting though it would be for me to follow hon. Members in some of their speeches, I must resist that impulse, because I have a definite duty to perform and will do it as briefly as possible. The House is, of course, well aware of the great interest which the hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) has always taken in questions relating to the prevention of cruelty to animals as chairman of the great society occupied with that subject. He has rendered a service in bringing this subject before the House. Hon. Members will agree, whatever their views may be in matters of detail, or on the question whether the existing law is adequate to deal with the matter, that it is a subject on which we ought always to be on the alert, because it is possible for abuses to creep in. An active public opinion, made manifest by the discussions which take place in this House, is, in any case, of very great value and importance.
Every hon. Member will agree that the object which the promoters of the Bill have in mind is most desirable. No one would desire that suffering should be caused to animals in the production of films, or that films intended for exhibition to the public should contain scenes depicting suffering of animals. We are a nation of animal lovers, and I am sure that I am voicing a universal opinion when I say that Parliament could not, and would not, tolerate the exploitation of animals for the production of films which, for the most part, are intended for the entertainment of the public. In view of what has been said about film production in other countries, it is as well that film producers in all parts of the world, who are thinking of this country as a market for their films, should realise that that is the attitude of Parliament in this country. I hope to be able to show later on that even under the existing law, and in any case if the Bill be passed, film producers who put scenes depicting cruelty into their films are, in so far as they do so, wasting their money, where the United Kingdom is concerned.
The Home Office are substantially in agreement with the objects of the Bill, but it would be to the advantage of the

House if I stated what we conceive to be the present position in the matter. We cannot follow the hon. Member for Gillingham when he says that there is no law which can effectively prevent the showing of objectionable films here, if the films are produced abroad. The position at present is that cinemas in this country cannot be opened for the public exhibition of films until they have received a licence from the local cinematograph licensing authority. Those authorities are the county and county borough councils, which are able to delegate their powers to district councils or to justices. The licences issued under the Cinematograph Act, 1909, normally contain two conditions which are relevant to the matter now before the House. The first condition provides that no film shall be shown which is likely to be injurious to morality or to be offensive to public feeling. If the council serve a notice on the licensee that they object to the exhibition of any film on the grounds aforesaid, that film shall not be shown. The second condition provides that no film, other than photographs of current events—commonly called the news reel—which has not been passed by the British Board of Film Censors, shall be exhibited without the express consent of the council.
It will, therefore, be apparent to the House that those two conditions, which are in common use in England and Wales, give the local licensing authority complete control over the films exhibited in the cinemas. I should observe, in connection with the second condition which I have read out, that although films have to be passed by the British Board of Film Censors, their decision is not final and that the local authorities have the power to authorise the exhibition of a film not passed by the Board, and conversely; but the cases where this power is exercised are extremely few. I would like to describe for a moment the attitude of the British Board of Film Censors to the question of cruelty depicted on the screen. Hon. Members will appreciate from what I have said that that is a matter of crucial practical importance to which the Board have given a great deal of thought. They are alive to the dangers contemplated by the Bill, and it is their practice to refuse to pass any incident in a film which could reasonably be supposed to have been produced by means which have necessitated cruelty to animals or means


of restraint amounting to cruelty. They have gone further than that. They do not pass, as a general rule, films in which cruelty has been pourtrayed or suggested, notwithstanding that no live animal Ms been used in the production of the film. The hon. Member for Gillingham has already given an example, and I am betraying no secret in saying that the ingenuity of film producers is such that they make use, on occasion, of dummy animals without the public being any the wiser. I understand, for instance, that a film was recently shown depicting a number of elephants which were constructed entirely on mechanical and not on biological principles, and that, in spite of that fact, they succeeded in deceiving an eminent circus proprietor when he saw it on the screen.
I think hon. Members will agree that the board's practice in this matter is a sound one, and that even where a dummy animal is used and no actual pain is suffered, no impression should be created that suffering is caused to animals. I think that is the general rule, although there may be border-line cases. Three or four years ago there was a wave of animal films and great numbers of them were produced. The films censors at that time gave the matter particular attention, and they took action which, I think, hon. Members will agree was sound. They set up a panel of experts, nominated by various societies, to advise them. The panel included representatives of the Royal Veterinary College, the Natural History Museum, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Society for the Preservation of the Fauna of the Empire, the Zoological Society and the London University Animal Welfare Society. I understand that that panel has done a considerable amount of work in advising the British Board of Film Censors.

Sir R. Gower: May I point out that great dissatisfaction exists to-day on the part of many members of the panel, particularly of the representative of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals?

Mr. Lloyd: I am very sorry to hear that. I was not previously aware of it, but the setting up of the panel was obviously a move in the right direction. I hope that the House in general will be reassured, after the statement that I have been able to make, as to the control at present exer-

cised over films in which animals are pourtrayed. I can go further and say that we have no evidence at the Home Office to show that the control is insufficient. A certain number of examples have been given to-day which would tend to show the reverse. The hon. Member for Gillingham quoted a letter by Sir Hesketh Bell in the "Times" which, I am bound to say, sounded a very formidable indictment. There is a very simple answer to the complaint, and one which, I think, hon. Members will agree is conclusive. It illustrates also that one has to be careful before accepting completely complaints made in particular cases. Two months before Sir Hesketh Bell wrote that letter to the "Times," the British Board of Film Censors had completely prohibited the showing of the film in the United Kingdom. Hon. Members will naturally ask how such a mistake came to be made. I believe it arose from the advance publicity of a film which takes place in the normal course of film activity, before the film comes before the British Board of Film Censors. I believe the writer of the letter was influenced by the advance publicity and was completely unaware that the British Board of Film Censors quite agreed with his view; they not only agreed with it, but they had acted upon it some two months before.
The only concrete example that has been given to-day was that mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore), namely, "The Charge of the Light Brigade." I have not seen that film, so that my personal views are of no interest, but I was rather disturbed by what my hon. and gallant Friend said, and particularly by the suggestion that the fall of a horse had been, secured by means of a wire which was stretched across the horse's path while it was proceeding at full gallop. I think the House will agree that, if that were the case, it would be a most dastardly form of cruelty, which ought never to be permitted, and certainly ought not to be shown on the screen for profit. I immediately had a telephone message sent to the British Board of Film Censors to ask them whether they could give me any precise information on the matter from their point of view, and I have since had a message from them which I think the House will be interested to hear.
It appears that an article appeared in a Californian paper alleging cruelty against the producers of this film. The producers maintained that it was a trumped-up charge, and they successfully proceeded against a journal in this country which reproduced the article. The British Board of Film Censors accepted the position which the producers took up, being satisfied that it was correct. It appears that in some cases india-rubber horses were used to produce some of the effects. The film was in fact seen by the consultative panel that I have mentioned, representing various societies interested in the welfare of animals, and, as a result, the board prohibited all the falls of horses except, I understand, perhaps one, and in that case I am informed that the falls were produced by trick horses and trick riders. Even then, however, it was decided to leave out all these falls except in one case, which no doubt was necessary to give continuity to the story for fear of misleading the public. I think the House will be glad to have that information, because without it the information given by my hon. and gallant Friend would undoubtedly have been very disturbing to our minds.
I ought to point out that, apart from the powers I have described, there is the additional guarantee, so far as films produced in this country are concerned, that the ordinary law relating to cruelty to animals can be invoked. There is, of course, no power in this country to control the action of film producers in other countries, but foreign films relating to animals are subject, when shown in this country, to the same control by the British Board of Film Censors and by local authorities as are films produced in this country; there is no distinction between the two. I have summed up the position as shortly as I can from the Home Office point of view. We feel that the existing powers are sufficient and adequate, but, of course, they are based upon the Cinematograph Act of 1909, and the organisation of the British Board of Film Censors, which has grown up since. It will be for the House to decide whether or not it is satisfied with the powers I have described, or whether it wishes to make assurance doubly sure by passing a Measure on the lines of this Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — ARCHITECTS REGISTRATION BILL. [Lords.]

Order for Second Reading read.

2.10 p.m.

Mr. Bossom: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill was passed in another place without Amendment and without a division. The general public, when they hear the name of "architect," are of opinion that it indicates a person who has been trained in the subject of architecture, and they understand, when they are purchasing a house, for example, which is described as architect-designed, that it has been designed by such a person. It has been found by experience, however, that they do not recognise that the term "registered architect" is essential, and, therefore, this Bill has been promoted by the Registration Council in order, with the consent of this House and of another place, to have the name changed to "architect."
I will give the House a very brief history of the situation. For several years this matter was discussed, and in 1931 the Architects (Registration) Bill was passed, establishing the fact that those who desired to call themselves registered architects must have their names upon a register. For two years after that time, those who had been architects or had practised that profession were entitled to go on to the register without examination, but after that period those who desired to use the name "registered architect" had to pass a qualifying examination. The Bill, which became an Act in 1931, established the Registration Council, and also a Board of Architectural Education. That board consisted of 75 members, four nominated by Universities, seven by the Society of Teachers, 19 by schools of architecture, seven by societies of teachers, 11 by non-architectural bodies, five by architectural bodies, and 24 registered persons nominated by the Council itself.
The present Bill is not an attempt to establish a monopoly of the practice of


architecture for any body or any group of people. It permits anyone to design or to supervise any form of construction; it in no way interferes with them; but, two years beyond the time when this Measure is, as I hope it will be, put on the Statute Book, a person so acting will not be able to call himself or herself an architect without passing a qualifying examination. That is the point of the Bill. It is not an attempt in any way to add to the costs of the public in connection with architectural undertakings; it is not an endeavour in any way to destroy the livelihood of any people. Many people, as hon. Members know, who are employed by various local authorities carry out the supervision and control construction work. Municipal engineers, medical officers and surveyors do that, and this Bill in no way affects them, except that it says that, after two years beyond the time when this Bill has become an Act, if they have not become registered they cannot call themselves architects. They can call themselves medical officers, municipal engineers, surveyors, or anything of that sort, but they must not call themselves architects. In other words, they call themselves what they are, and I am sure they will not pretend to be otherwise.
The Bill is very widely supported. I have here a list of the bodies supporting it. The first is the Royal Institute of British Architects. Then there are the 67 provincial associations allied to the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Faculty of Architects and Surveyors, the Architectural Association (London), the Association of Architects and Surveyors and Technical Assistants, the representatives of the Council of the Unattached Architects, of which there are 3,000, and I would refer to the fact that the greatest number is that of the Royal Institute of British Architects, an honoured organisation in this country and one which has done service of the finest kind. But beyond these the Bill is actively supported by the crafts that enable buildings to be constructed. The National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, representing something like 900,000 members, the National Federation of the Building Trades Employers, the London Master Builders, the Auctioneers, the Civil Engineers and Structural Engineers, and Surveyors' Institute—all those institutions are in no way opposing the

Measure. If they thought it was trespassing on any of their provinces they would immediately oppose it. In fact practically 90 per cent. of the profession in this country are supporting the Bill and practically all of those who carry out the work designed by members of the profession are supporting the Bill.
The Bill is not an attempt to make architecture an exclusive profession. Take London as an example. A boy can go through an elementary school and can gain a junior county scholarship or go through the general schooling course, right on, through a technical school; or he can go, for example, to the Regent Street Polytechnic, and by paying two guineas a year for the evening course over a period of six years he can complete the course that is necessary to qualify for the examination which entitles him to registration. The Registration Council, under the powers given to it by the Act of 1931, requires annual dues of 6s. 8d., a half of the total of which was to have been put aside to help necessitous students. But it was agreed by the Privy Council in 1932 that the council should not spend all of this amount, but should set aside a part regularly and so accumulate a sum, which is now in the neighbourhood of £2,500, for the purpose of helping students over a wider area. The Royal Institute of British Architects alone has granted 31 scholarships.
At this time 12 art schools, technical colleges or universities have been able to frame their curriculum and develop an examination, which has enabled the Registration Council to give them full permission to grant full approval to those who pass the course. I have alluded to the Regent Street Polytechnic, which allows a student to attend an evening course for six years at two guineas a year. The student may be working during the day in a builder's or architect's office and earning his living, and there are a great many men who have done that. I could cite the cases if desired. As to what is felt generally about the standard of the examination, let me state that last year, 1936, 750 evening students presented themselves for the Royal Institute of British Architects examination alone, irrespective of other bodies that conduct such examinations.
Let me deal with registration in this country and other countries. I say quite


frankly that in this matter we are a long way behind. I have practised the profession in many lands, and I know whereof I speak. In five Dominions and Colonies registration is compulsory. In 41 out of 48 States of the United States it is compulsory. In a dozen countries of Europe it is compulsory. Certain criticisms have been made of the Bill by an organisation, and of which organisation I believe the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) was the chairman, has circulated a pamphlet which many Members have received. The first item in that paragraph to which I would refer is a statement with which we all agree, that the word "architect" should be the one that is employed. Halfway down the page the pamphlet states that the Bill requires all architects to register. This is not the case; they are allowed to register if they wish to do so. Thy pamphlet uses the word "required." The truth is that they are allowed to register.
The pamphlet says that the Royal Institute of British Architects circulars state that similar or more drastic legislation prevails in the United States. That is absolutely right. There in very many States an architect cannot practise at all unless registered. Registration is insisted upon as a State regulation. A man cannot practise, no matter what he may have done, unless he is registered. He must show that he has the required qualities. On page 4 the pamphlet says that this is a compelling Measure. It is not a compulsory Measure; it is a permissive Measure, and no one is compelled to register unless he or she wishes to do so, but if the Bill becomes law no one will be entitled to call himself or herself an architect without registering. A man cannot call himself a Member of Parliament unless he has been elected. Why should a man call himself an architect unless he has had the qualifications necessary to make him an architect? On page 5 the pamphlet says that a man is compelled to pass an examination established by a certain body. Twelve, art schools, technical colleges and universities have already established a standard of examination which has proved satisfactory. That shows it is not compulsory to pass the examination of one other special body. Again, it states at the bottom of page 5:

The so-called recognised architectural schools cost the students 60 guineas a year or even more in fees alone.
That may be correct if they go there, but they do not have to go there. At the Regent Street Polytechnic, to which have already referred, the fees are £2 2s. a year, and the full course can be taken during the evenings, that is, for £12 12s. in six years. On page 9 it says:
The Royal Institute of British Architects only represents a third of the architects' profession.
If the Royal Institute of British Architects with its 6,750 registered members only represents a third, the 1,200 members of the protesting body which is suggesting that the standard of education is too high represents only about 6 per cent. of the profession. This body which is objecting to this Measure was founded in 1925. The Royal Institute of British Architects was originally started in 1834.
We are endeavouring to raise the level of our educational system everywhere, and not to lower it. Among the members of this organisation are very distinguished men indeed, personal friends of my own whom I admire tremendously, but if the standard of architectural educational requirements be lowered what is this body going to do about fees? They have not said a word about that. Do they propose that in the future they should send out men with a lower standard of education and charge the same fees as those which are how paid to men who have a very much higher standard of training? I do not believe the House is desirous of lowering the standard of education, yet this protesting body which asks for the rejection of the Bill wants to lower the standard of education but not to lower the fees.
A few weeks ago we had a Debate in which there was a unanimous opinion that we wanted to maintain the amenities of the country. Many of us have fought on this issue many times. I have here a quotation from "Punch" of 10th February last which sums up the situation.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present: House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Bossom: Referring to the possible rejection of this Bill, "Punch" said:
This means that speculative and conscienceless builders will remain free to erect


hideous, badly planned and (mercifully) impermanent houses under the marvellously seductive banner of 'architect-planned.'
We have got to protect the word "architect" for the benefit of the general public. This Bill only attempts to carry forward that principle. It will not stop anyone from practising architecture but, if they do not trouble within two years to qualify before the Registration Council, they cannot call themselves architects. If they are not accepted when they make application before the Registration Council they have a right of appeal to an admissions body and, if they do not succeed there, they can appeal again to an independent and non-architectural tribunal, so that they can get absolute freedom in this matter. But if they have failed to register within two years from the' passing of this Bill they must pass an examination. I am authorised to say that the Registration Council are willing to accept any helpful Amendment. Considering that we spend £300,000,000 a year on building and architectural work, we are entitled to require those who call themselves architects to have a standard of education that is going to be a credit to our country.

2.34 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I beg to second the Motion.
Had it not been for his unfortunate illness the duty of seconding this Motion would have fallen to my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), who would have brought to it an amount of technical knowledge, experience and understanding, to which I can lay no claim. It is worth while to observe that we have the theoretical side represented by the hon. Member opposite, and those who were engaged in the practical work as represented by my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich, who, as secretary of one of the big building trade industries, sees the value of having skilled and educated people carrying out work of such primary importance to the community at such a time.
I second the Motion with no pretence of any technical knowledge, but from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, who is very much concerned about such an important matter as that of architecture, and the great part that it must play in the culture and education of our people. It is no exaggeration to say that it has a great spiritual value upon the com-

munity. It is almost impossible to overestimate the spiritual value of a beautiful building upon the community. In view of the growing standard of education and the fact that, to a large extent, the structure of the nation is being rebuilt, it is of increasing importance that those who are entrusted with the planning and elevation of our buildings should be equipped in every possible way, both educationally and by skilled training, to give of their very best. It is for that main reason that I support the Bill. One has only to look around to see the extraordinary contrasts with regard to architecture in these days. One of the most wonderful sights to be seen is to stand on Westminster Bridge at dusk and observe the effect of some of the new architecture along the Embankment. You get a tremendous contrast if you go into the country and see how the beautiful landscape has been defiled by ill-planned and badly constructed buildings, as a result of which, in a few years, slums will be spread throughout the length and breadth of the land.
Slums are not only ugly and harmful from the point of view of the neighbourhoods in which they are situated, but they have a bad moral effect upon the people who are compelled to dwell amid such surroundings. Unless something is done on the lines of the Bill now before the House, this sort of thing is likely to be perpetuated. One of the objections to the Bill has been that, to a certain extent, it is said to perpetuate something like class-distinction. If there is anything that would be likely to attract my attention and to arouse my opposition to a Bill it would be that fact. Therefore, I made a close inquiry as to whether such a position could be maintained in respect of this Bill. It has been suggested by some people that it is expressed in the educational examination. That is absurd. The standard is simply that of matriculation or the general schools' certificate. It is almost impossible nowadays for anybody leaving school to obtain any position other than that of a general labourer, or even that, without the school-leaving certificate. That is the standard of education that is laid down in this Bill.
There is also the question of whether or not those who follow the profession should be drawn from one class. When this subject was under discussion in this House in 1931 the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs


(Lieut.-Colonel Moore) gave some figures relating to those who took the R.I.B.A. Examination, and said that there were 115 in that year, 60 of whom were from elementary schools, and that about 55 of that 60 came from council elementary schools. That rather blows sky high the suggestion of class distinction. But since that time I have made some inquiries for myself. I am a member of some years standing of the London Education Committee, and, naturally, I have been solicitous to see that, as far as possible, the door should be thrown wide open for boys from working-class and humble homes to enter the professions, believing that it is good for the professions that they should introduce new strains. It is a surprising thing that, of all the professions, there are more boys from the London institutes entering the profession of architect than any other profession. A large number of the boys who go through our ordinary evening institutes and attend classes for perfecting their training as architects come from working-class homes.
This Bill, to a certain extent, carries forward a further stage what has already been accepted both in another place and in this House. It should be borne in mind that the Royal Institute of British Architects also provide a number of bursaries, scholarships, etc., in order to enable pupils without sufficient economic resources to carry on their education. I have been interested as a layman, to observe the amount of opposition which has been promoted against this Bill by the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, which I observe an hon. Member in a previous debate in this House described as an organisation to prevent this kind of Bill becoming law. [Interruption.] He has certainly not repudiated this, and would certainly be supporting this Bill if he were in the House this afternoon. That is his statement, as recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Society of British Architects have been charged with certain irregularities in administration, and it has been alleged that a certain fund at their disposal for the provision of bursaries and scholarships has not been wholly spent. Therefore, one would naturally be led to the conclusion that for some reason or other these bursaries were being withheld. I have found on inquiry that they are acting under a provision of the Privy Council, and are

not in a position to act otherwise. The advice of the Privy Council was that these scholarships should be distributed in such a manner as to give an extension over a greater number of years.
In a communication we received very late last night, this particular organisation, while not repudiating that accusation, makes some reference to it, and evidently realises that the position is unchanged. If people have to resort to that method, their case cannot be very strong, and that alone should be sufficient to condemn it in the eyes of all those who believe that we have a right to demand in such a calling as architecture the very best possible standard we can get, and those with the very best qualifications, and that opportunity should be given for people from all ranks of society to qualify. As far as I can see, this Bill affords that opportunity.
The House is now asked to complete the work which it has been doing for a series of years. Gradually, by experience, it has more and more confirmed the urgent necessity of a definite standard of qualifications for people who carry on architectural work. The movement has been carried forward with such success that it is now felt that definite steps should be taken so that it should be made plain that certain people who carry on work as architects are not really qualified. There will be no objection to builders and others who want to build for ribbon development and in connection with other estates, to build there, but they should not be allowed to call themselves architects. The community will then know what they are faced with. They will know whether they are engaging an unskilled man, a person who has not the requisite qualifications, or whether they are engaging a man who is skilled and has reached a certain standard, and who will be not only amenable to his employer, but amenable to the standards and the codes which have grown up with a profession which has every concern for its own honour.

2.48 p.m.

Sir Robert Tasker: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
The dissertation of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) was very interesting and intriguing to me,


because it appeared to be founded on the kind of facts, which are really fiction, as contained in the speeches in another place when this Bill was introduced there. It was introduced in another place by a Noble Lord. Those who have been associated with that Noble Lord know that it is impossible for him to practise deception. Deception is so foreign to his nature that it would be impossible for him to deceive any man. Therefore, with a character like that it was all the more easy to impose upon his good nature and cupidity. I want to call attention to statements made by the Noble Lord in another place in introducing the Bill. He said:
I think that the Act has worked smoothly.

Mr. Bossom: I did not say anything of the kind.

Mr. Speaker: I thought the remarks of the hon. Member were with regard to a Noble Lord. When he spoke of the Noble Lord I did not know whether he spoke of cupidity or stupidity. Either would be out of order in this House.

Sir R. Tasker: I said "cupidity." Perhaps I had better refrain from expressing my view as to the mental attitude of the Noble Lord or of anybody else in connection with this extraordinary Measure. I certainly was not referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone when I was quoting. I have been a member of the Architects' Registration Council ever since its inception, so far from it working smoothly I can assure the House that the meetings of that council are more like a bear garden than a meeting of professional men. The Noble Lord went on to say:
I do not hesitate to say that at least 90 per cent. of the registered architects are very ready to support this amending Bill. …
I must deny that statement because when the Bill was introduced into another place there could not have been 12 people who knew of its existence. According to the hon. Member for Maidstone, there are 7,000 or 8,000 architects who belong to one society. According to the calendar of the Royal Institute of British Architects they account for the existence of 19,000 architects. I declare to the House that the Architects' Registration Council as such were never consulted about this

Bill. The council have experienced great difficulties in putting the Act into operation in the direction that they desired, namely, the promotion of architecture and the betterment of conditions. They passed the following resolution unanimously.
That in view of the several ambiguities of the Act, which are calculated to embarrass the Architects' Registration Council of the United Kingdom and its committee in the proper and equitable administration of the Act, this council do now take action to draft and secure as soon as possible such amendment of the Act as may be deemed necessary.

Mr. Bossom: Will the hon. Member kindly read the complete quotation? He has omitted certain words.

Sir R. Tasker: I have read all, except two words. Upon that resolution, a committee of the Architects' Registration Council was set up. It proceeded to examine the anomalies and ambiguities of the Act and then suddenly it was resolved by a small section of the council, acting on that committee, that work for the time being should be suspended and that they would create a Parliamentary Committee. That Parliamentary Committee consisted of, I think, six members of the Royal Institute of British Architects, with the chairman and vice-chairman, one member of the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, and one representing the unattached architects. When they met to consider the question of an amending Bill, the chairman seems to have promptly ruled: "We are not here to discuss ambiguities. We are here to propose a Bill and send it up to the Registration Council." The meeting was adjourned. When the Architects' Registration Council then met, this astounding resolution was proposed from the Chair:
That any member of the Parliamentary Committee who is unable to give unconditional support to an amending Bill on the lines laid down by the Council, shall ipso facto cease to be a member of the Committee.
When that extraordinary suggestion was put forward by the chairman of the council we naturally wanted to know what was behind it. We tried by interrogation to know what the chairman of the council and the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee had in mind, but we could get no information. Representatives of other bodies also made inquiries but they got no satisfaction. One


member of the council having been deported from the Parliamentary Committee—

Mr. Stephen: Who was he?

Sir R. Tasker: I must refrain from giving names. One member having been deported from the committee, the first thing members of the Registration Council knew was that a Bill had been presented in another place by the Noble Lord purporting to come from the Architects' Registration Council. It never came from the Architects' Registration Council. We were never consulted about it. It was the work of a few men acting as a Parliamentary Committee. It is an astonishing suggestion, therefore, that 90 per cent., or any per cent. at all, of the architects are in favour of the Bill. There may be some excuse for a Noble Lord in another place making such a statement because he believed it, but I can find no such excuse for the hon. Member for Maidstone, who is an architect and ought not to be so easily deluded. The Noble Lord, in introducing the Bill in another place, said:
The registration board has set up a most elaborate educational committee on which I suppose every architectural view of education is amply represented.
When the Bill was before the House in 1931 certain predictions were made and were epitomised by one institution. This is what they said:
The constitution and control of the Board of Architectural Education will continue and remain under the control of the Council of the Royal Institute of British Architects as a statutory means of recruiting membership for that body and to the exclusion of competitive examining bodies. In this way would the Royal Institute of British Architects obtain a monopoly effect which the House of Commons denies in fact.
This is to ensure that the Royal Institute of British Architects fulfils its promise that when the Bill becomes an Act the qualifications for registration would be the qualifications of the Royal Institute of British Architect membership, and thus would it secure its objective, to consolidate the profession in one organisation. That is the real object of the Bill. It is not a Bill to deal with ribbon development and it is not an attempt to belittle the Royal Institute of British Architects. I have known that body longer than my hon. Friend. I know the

splendid work it has done, and I realise the value of their scholarships. I know the generosity of my hon. Friend towards that institution. But let us look at the Amendments which are required. The first the provision of
An independent Council of Control representative of architects and relevant interests, with safeguards to prevent excessive representation of any particular organisation of architects.
The First Schedule does not provide this. The result has been that the Architects Registration Council, as well as its committees, is a packed body with an overwhelming number of men of one institution. The second requirement was:
That any examination board under the Act shall be a committee of this Council, appointed by it, responsible to it, and subject to its regulations.
The Bill does not provide for this. In the third place it was said:
The Bill shall contain no provision giving membership advantages to any particular organisation of architects such, for example, as the recognition of a particular membership examination, which is proposed by Clause 7 of the Bill.
All these Amendments have been predicted. I was not alone in making these predictions. We knew that the Act would be an utter failure, and an utter failure it has proved to be. The Registration Council met and it was evident that the real purpose of the scheme was to bring about a condition of affairs when we should be controlled by the Royal Institute of British Architects. I hope that a man can be an architect without being a member of that body. The Bill suggests that you should compel every man who desires to practise as an architect to be registered. The hon. Member for Maidstone did not tell us what was going to happen to the eminent architects who decline to be registered or licensed like a pawnbroker. He cannot deny that there are many of our most eminent architects who decline to be registered, and for very good reasons. It has been admitted that the effect of opening the door to registration was to let in anyone who could declare that he had acted as an architect.
What does this Bill do? Although under the 1931 Act the door was closed after two years, and a man has to pass certain examinations and exhibiting some qualifications before he is permitted to be registered, this Bill throws the door open


again and says that there shall be a moratorium for two years during which anyone may apply and be registerd as an architect. There is no protection. This Bill is a sham. It is an attempt to get by dubious means the control by one body of the whole of the architectural profession. It is idle for anyone to say that it is not an attempt to create a monopoly. Let hon. Members examine it from any direction they please, and they will see that it proves clearly that the intention is to create a monopoly.
I regret to say that it is true that there has been a good deal of ill-feeling between the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors. When I entered the profession, I thought the word "architect" was synonymous with "gentleman," but I have long since abandoned the idea that the two terms are synonymous, after more than 50 years experience it hurts me to have to make an admission of that sort. I know that one of the finest gentlemen I ever met was a working stonemason. I know equally well that if the authors of this Bill had their way there would be a great deal of what hon. Members opposite would term "the old-school-tie" feeling. One finds genius in a boy whether his father is a barrister or a butcher. The 1931 Bill was designed to assist such a boy by creating scholarships, but the effects on him if this Bill were passed would be dreadful.
The hon. Member for Maidstone laid great stress upon the necessity for examinations, and I agree that there ought to be examinations. A man ought to be skilled and to qualify, and without qualifying he ought not to be entrusted with the expenditure of other people's money and with the lives and limbs of the people employed in putting up the structures, and of the people who have to live in them. I may be a little old-fashioned, but I wish that the old order of things could obtain to-day. There was a time when a man was compelled to work his way through the shop, the quarry, the brickyard, and so on, before he was allowed to occupy the great and exalted position of architect. Nowadays a man goes to the job with long flowing hair, runs his fingers through his hair, and talks about art. It is the practical man that we want—the practical genius.
I suggest to hon. Members that neither Sir Christopher Wren nor Inigo Jones would have passed the Royal Institute of British Architects examination. The Institute profess to attach great importance to examination and the House ought to know that the Kalendar of the Institute for 1936 showed that there were 1,767 fellows, 3,618 associates, and 2,346 licentiates, making a total of 7,731, and of that 7,731 only 4,469 had passed the examination. What is the extraordinary importance attached to this remarkable examination? Curiously enough, after the 1931 Act was passed there was a tremendous influx of licentiates into the Institute; many were rapidly transferred to fellowships—a title which would indicate a position superior to that of associate. But the extraordinary thing is that the associates of the Institute are the only people who are compelled to pass the examination. It is not necessary to pass an examination to become a licentiate or a fellow. If there are 3,262 who are fellows or licentiates and have never passed an examination, then I submit that the value of the examination has been grossly exaggerated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone himself had an experience which shows the value of the examination. He gave a gold medal at the Polytechnic in Regent Street for the best drawing. It was won by a young man who afterwards submitted himself for the Institute examination. Inter alia he had to send in a drawing to show that he really could draw, and he naturally thought that the drawing which had won the Bossom gold medal at the Polytechnic would be good enough. But it was not. It was rejected. He appealed to me as a member of the Registration Council and, greatly daring, I wrote to the Secretary of the Institute and related the circumstances. The reply was that the young man must send up another drawing. The young man was very angry, at which I was not surprised. He dashed off another drawing. I thought it was an insult to send that drawing up to the Institute. It passed. He rejoices now in being able to put the letters A.R.I.B.A. after his name. I do not give that young man's name because although this is a privileged place I do not seek to take advantage of that privilege, but there must be a record of the case on the files of the Institute.
I feel strongly on this question of examinations, having been in touch with it for a long time. I remember when I was on the County Council a question being put to juniors of 12 years of age, "What is the Golden Horde?" I did not know the answer, and I asked the Education Officer and he did not know. The headmasters of London County Council schools were circularised and they did not know. At the end of six weeks they got the answer in the British Museum. It was a fair-haired race of Mongols. I said to the education officer, "Why not ask this pedantic humbug of a fellow who set the examination paper what it was?" because he was the only man in London apparently, outside the British Museum, who knew the answer. That is the sort of thing that you get in these examinations. There is far too much—

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Will the hon. Member allow me to—

Sir R. Tasker: There is far too much value attached to these examinations, and the candidates are very largely the victims of the caprice or perhaps the state of liver of the examiner. If a candidate happens to answer as the examiner wants him to answer, he will probably get full marks, and if he does not, he will probably get trounced. Here is an example of an R.I.B.A. examination question. "Draw a cathedral." Who will want to draw a cathedral? Who will ever have a chance of building a cathedral? If one were asked the peculiar characteristics, say, of Ely or Durham or some other well-known cathedral, one could understand it. It would show that one had some education and knew something about architecture. A man was asked to give the width of a certain nave, and he could not give it. When he went up for his viva voce examination, he was asked, "Do you know that the nave of Westminster Abbey at one end is six inches wider than it is at the other?" He did not know it. I do not know it, not having tested it. That kind of question just shows the extraordinary state of mind which examiners exhibit when the poor wretched candidates come before them.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Will the hon. Member answer one question or not?

Sir R. Tasker: I understood that my hon. and gallant Friend was going to

speak later. The "Architects' Journal" of 25th March sets out the position of affairs very clearly when it refers to the temptation of the Royal Institute to eliminate all examinations save their own, and says that this dispute must be settled with a justice that is beyond question. Well, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors desire justice, not only for their own members, but for the architects generally of this country, and—

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Will the hon. Member take the rest of the House into his confidence?

Sir R. Tasker: I will take the hon. and gallant Member into my confidence and tell him how they have administered their scholarships. This is from the chairman of the finance committee. The amount placed to reserve in 1936 equalled 48 per cent. of the income for the year. The grants for scholarships equalled 25 per cent., the direct expenses 8 per cent., salaries 15 per cent., and overheads 4 per cent.; so that 27 per cent. was expended in expenses. I regret that there has been a lot of correspondence sent by both bodies to Members of Parliament. When I look at my postbag, I can say that I have probably more architects in my constituency than there are in any other constituency in the kingdom. There are hundreds of them. One would have thought that if the architects wanted this Bill, having been inspired by circular letters from the Institute, of which they are members, I should have been overwhelmed with correspondence. I have received eight requests to support the Bill. As to the number of requests to oppose it, when I counted up to 400 letters I stopped. I refused to spend any more money on penny stamps for cards acknowledging these letters.

Mr. Bossom: Are those 400 architects in the hon. Member's constituency or in his association?

Sir R. Tasker: I do not know whether they are in my association or not. They are certainly in my constituency.

Mr. Bossom: Architects?

Sir R. Tasker: If the hon. Member cares to come to my office I could show him 100 in Gray's Inn alone. The hon. Member may know all about skyscrapers in New York, but he is behind the times with


regard to London. These are some extracts from the letters, and the House should know what some people think of the Bill. One writer refers to the "self-complacent attitude" and the "craftiness indulged in by you politicians." He underlines the word "you." Another says that the Institute is controlled by "Pecksniffs, jackals and commercial travellers."

Sir William Davison: On a point of Order. Is it not customary on these afternoons, when a number of Members desire to speak, that hon. Members should confine their speeches as shortly as possible to the point so as not to prevent other hon. Members who desire to intervene taking part in the discussion?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Sir R. Tasker: I thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) has not refrained from butting in when Waterloo Bridge and the affairs of the London County Council have been under discussion and as he crowded me out on several occasions when I wanted to speak, although I do know something about the work of the London County Council and he has never served on that body, he must not complain when I am talking about my own profession. As I have said, I have had all these letters, but they do no good, and I am inclined to say about them, "A plague on both your houses." I wish people would refrain from writing to Members of Parliament for, quite frankly, I do not think it influences them one way or the other. This Bill went through its Committee stage in another place, and one Noble Lord said of it then that it really was an attempt to create a monopoly.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not quote what speakers have said in another place.

Sir R. Tasker: Would it be in order for me to refer to someone, some vague person, who had stated certain things in criticism of the Measure without mentioning any names?

Mr. Speaker: The Rule in this House against quoting speeches made in another place is very definite; certainly speeches which have been made in the same Session of Parliament must not be quoted.

Sir R. Tasker: The Bill having been promoted in another place I thought I might assist the House to learn the views which were expressed there, and save hon. Members the trouble of acquiring a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Stephen: Say "Somebody said it somewhere," and we shall know what you mean.

Sir R. Tasker: There is a general impression, not confined to architects, that this Bill is an attempt to create a monopoly. That view has been expressed in public places, at dinners and at meetings, though we have been assured by those who presented the Bill that they had no such intention. I am sorry that I cannot read any other intention into it. It is also alleged that it has received great support. I should have liked to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone when he was telling us who had supported the Bill and ask him how they could have supported a Bill about which nobody save some half a dozen members of the Royal Institute of British Architects knew a single word. The Parliamentary Agents knew, of course, but the general public and architects did not know. The opposition to the Bill is not due to any desire to belittle the Royal Institute of British Architects. That is the last thing in the world I wish to do. On more than one occasion I have paid tribute to the value of the work they have done, but I regret that the members of it do not apparently take sufficient interest in it to do things in the way I should like.
We have heard about creative art and I am tempted to ask whether the very best thing that could be produced in the way of creative art is to be found in the new headquarters of the Royal Institute of British Architects in Portland Place. There must be differences of opinion. To me that building is unattractive, yet it must have commended itself to a lot of people for it to have been erected. That just shows that great differences of opinion exist between one section of the community and another. I admire a Grecian temple, but nobody wants to build Grecian temples to-day. When I had to draw those temples again and again I learned one thing which is apparently not taught to-day, and that is, to have some sense of proportion. Modern architecture, as I see it, is largely composed of horizontal lines and vertical


lines. Apparently it is the object of the schools to-day to teach a boy to use a T-square as a set-square, and that passes for architecture. There is no proportion about it. To me the results are rather hideous.
Here is a letter from the Registrar of the Architects Registration Council, on whose authority I know not. He says:
I enclose, for the information of your Council, a copy of the Bill that was introduced in the House of Lords yesterday by Lord Crawford, at the instance of this Council.
That is inaccurate. It was not at the instance of the Council. It was apparently at the instance of this Parliamentary Committee. Among other things, I am exposing the very dubious way in which affairs are conducted and which I regard as improper. I have never known a committee of a council to override the body which created that committee, but that is constantly done here, and this House is being asked to approve the conduct of the Registration Council of the United Kingdom.
I have a letter of protest from the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers. They did not hear anything about objections to the Bill from my hon. and gallant Friend, but they say that they have serious objections to it. They say that the experience of registration in the past has been unsatisfactory, and they go on to declare:
It is impossible to overlook the fact that the Admission Committee have not confined their attention to the simple question whether applicants have in fact practised as architects; they have taken into consideration questions of training, etc., to which the Act did not entitle them to refer, and by exceeding the powers conferred upon them by the Act they have rejected a number of applicants who were undoubtedly practising architects before the specified date.
That is a very serious complaint, but there has been no attempt at investigation by the Architects Registration Council. Therefore I suggest to the House that further powers should not be given to the Architects Registration Council, because it is an off-shoot, as at present constituted, of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. A. V. Alexander) pleaded very hard in 1931 for architects engaged by co-operative societies. Well, the axe will be laid—

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: On a point of Order. I hope to try to reply to some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but I have only been able to hear one word out of two of what he has been saying, and I should like to ask whether I might appeal to the hon. Gentleman, through you, Mr. Speaker, if it is a point of Order, to allow the House to judge whether he is talking of a matter of interest or not? At present I am completely unable to hear his arguments, if there are any.

Mr. T. Henderson: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was holding a little meeting on his own account?

Mr. Speaker: I do not see that any point of Order arises.

Sir R. Tasker: I thought, in my innocence, that my remarks ought to be addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, and not to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. Here is a very interesting letter—[Laughter]. It is not a laughing matter to us, whatever it may be to those whose livelihood does not depend upon it. This letter says:
I wonder if the Register is going to be a good thing or the reverse. Is there any appeal against their decision? If so, what is the procedure? I am a registered architect, and the principal of a firm which has been in existence 60 years, and yet my son, aged 27, has been refused registration, presumably because he is not a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects. I am easing off, and want him to gradually take over, but he can hardly do this if he is not registered. Surely, after having served his articles and been with me for 10 years, he is entitled to be registered. I know of men who are really only estate agents who are registered, and also members of their staffs, yet the son of an old established firm is refused admission.
I want to refer to the support which my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) alleges has been given to the Bill. Before the list of names which he read out, these words occur:
There is reason to believe that the Bill is supported by the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives"—
and so on. That puts a very different complexion upon the state of affairs. My hon. Friend made the definite statement that it was supported by these people.

Mr. Bossom: The chairman of the National Federation of Building Trades


Operatives was to have seconded this Bill, but, unfortunately, he is ill. It was on his assurance that I made that statement this afternoon.

Sir R. Tasker: I am not impugning the good faith of my hon. Friend; I know that he really believed that what he was stating was accurate; and the same applies to the chairman of the National Federation of Building Trades Operatives. Here is a letter signed by the chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom:
The committee have given an undertaking to the Association of Architects, Surveyors, and Technical Assistants that, in the event of the Bill being passed into law, steps will be taken to secure the assent of the Privy Council to the amendment of Regulation 26.
Who made the Architects Registration Council the dictators to the Privy Council, to direct the Privy Council what to do? That is the tone of the whole of this business. I have had handed to me a certain document and I asked my hon. Friend who moved the Second Reading of the Bill whether it is accurate or not for it is attributed to him. The document reads:
Mr. Bossom and Mr. Hicks had an interview with the Deputy Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, who has given assurances that the Home Office approved the Bill.
Is that accurate? I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, who is present, will answer the question. I do not believe that he or any Minister would authorise such an admission and compromise himself. It would be wrong for me to continue further, because the House is getting into a facetious mood and this is really a serious matter. I say to hon. Members opposite that if this Bill goes through, if what the ruling powers have in mind comes into operation, the will of Parliament, as expressed in the Act of 1931, will be defeated, and the outlook will be perfectly hopeless. Parliament said, "You shall give 50 per cent. of the income for scholarships." That body came to this House two years later and said, "We have no money; will you relieve us of this obligation?" And Parliament did. To-day that scholarship fund amounts to over £3,900. Posterity may be a very fine thing, but during the few remaining years I have to live I want to see the great

and glorious art of architecture advance; I do not want to see come into existence any institution which is going to diminish, deteriorate or take away any of the glorious traditions which we enjoy to-day. It is because I feel that this Bill is not to the benefit of architecture, not to the benefit of my fellow countrymen, that I have moved the Amendment.

3.44 P.m.

Mr. McEntee: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am not in the architectural profession, and to-day I feel rather glad that I am not in the profession. The only sense in which I would desire to be considered an architect is that I sometimes call myself the architect of my own destiny, but if this Bill were to become law I should not be allowed to use that designation about myself in the future, because Clause r says that only those who have registered will be allowed to use the word "architect,"
Provided that nothing in this Section shall affect the use of the designation 'Naval architect' for 'Landscape architect' 
So that, presumably, if I were to designate myself architect of my own destinies, I should be committing a breach of the law. I am opposed to the Bill for many reasons which have already been given and for some others. I feel that the purpose of the Bill is to create such a monopoly for the Royal Institute of British Architects as has already been created by certain other professions, and I think, if such a monopoly were created, it would be a definite hardship to many brilliant young men and women who come from working-class families.

Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Do not all the scholarships at present given by the profession go to purely necessitous students? That is a fact. I am asking the hon. Member whether he is aware of it.

Mr. McEntee: I am well aware of what is happening under the existing law, and it is because I think the present position would be worsened as a consequence of the passing of the Bill that I am opposing it. I am not satisfied with the way in which the existing law has been administered. The Council held an examination last year and, of 60 scholars who sat for the examniation, 10 were selected for interviews. For some extraordinary reason they selected the one who got the


highest and the second highest number of points in the examination, the one who got seventh and the one who got tenth, passing over the numbers 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9. Number three was aged 21¿ years. His total examination marks were 323, the highest being 351 and the second highest 326. The one to whom I refer particularly, who was not given a scholarship, received 60 marks for drawing, which was very high up in the percentage of marks for drawing, and only 20 for design. He might be considered on design only as having failed, and in consequence of that there might be some reason for his rejection, but when I look lower down the list I find that the one who was number 10 received only 276 marks as against 323, only 15 for drawing as against 60, and only 15 for design as against 20, yet he was passed and given a scholarship. This young man was aged 22¿ as against the other man's 21¿, so it was not on age, it was not on marks, it was not on drawing or design. On all these points he was well behind any of the other selected candidates for interviews.
Another point in respect of which scholarships are supposed to be given is that of need. The one who was rejected is the son of a widow in very poor circumstances who made tremendous efforts to give her son the education which enabled him to obtain these high marks. The one who was passed and was No. 10 on the list comes from a family in very much better circumstances. There is something wrong, therefore, behind the scenes in the means by which boys are selected for scholarships in cases like that.

Sir John Withers: Is there not a viva voce examination? In almost every sholarship examination, the examiners see the boys and supplement the written questions with verbal questions, and that is part of the examination.

Mr. McEntee: It is because I know that system and realise how vicious it is that I am objecting to-day. Like many other Members of the House, I have sat on a local education committee for a number of years, and I know the kind of oral examination which used to take place in my district when children were brought in front of the secondary schoolmaster or schoolmistress. I know the reason that

induced them to reject candidates whose work was infinitely better than that of some of those who were selected. It is for that reason that I am opposed to the Bill. I am surprised and sorry to see my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) giving support to this Bill. The only excuse which I could make for his supporting it is the statement he made at the beginning of his speech, that he knew nothing at all about architecture.

Mr. Ammon: I certainly did not say that I knew nothing about it.

Mr. McEntee: My hon. Friend said that he had very little knowledge.

Mr. Ammon: Technical knowledge.

Mr. McEntee: He did say that he had very little knowledge of it, and in that I certainly agree with him. As to the organisations said to be supporting the Bill, I would say to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) that he is entirely misinformed in regard to some of the organisations about which I know more than he does. I happen to be a member of a society which is affiliated to the National Federation of Building Trade Operatives, and we, at any rate, do not support the Bill. I know of no organisation affiliated to the Building Trade Operatives which has been asked for support in regard to the Bill. Consequently, whoever has told the hon. Member that they have the support of the federation, all I can say is, they may have the support, as I know they have, of some members of the federation, but they have not the support of the federation itself. The same would apply to almost all the organisations he mentioned in his speech to-day. I should be very sorry indeed to think that they would have supported it. One of the objects of the federation is to make it easier for poor boys whose parents are in a trade like my own, that of carpentry, or who are joiners, bricklayers, etc., to get into some of the professions associated with those trades. Nobody can argue that this Bill will make it easier, but everybody must know perfectly well, that it will make it more difficult. It is one of the objects of the Bill to make it more difficult to enter the profession. As the hon. Member for Holborn (Sir R. Tasker) said, the Bill will introduce into the profession to a greater measure than exists to-day, the old school tie idea.
Let me say a few words about the people who are responsible for the administration of the principal Act. What about the balance sheet? Nobody has ever seen or, at any rate, the members of the profession have never been provided with, any balance sheet. Why? What is happening to the money that is collected? I do not say that it is misappropriated, but we have a right to know what is happening to the money that is taken by the examining board in the way of fees and in other ways associated with the duties imposed upon them under the original Act. The claim made for the Bill is that it will introduce a higher standard into the architectural profession. It will do no such thing. There are many incompetent men who are practising as architects—I know many of them—who if the Bill passes would be entitled to become registered, and they would be no more competent because of that registration than they are at the present time, unregistered. Clause 2 says:
Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall, on application made to the Council in the prescribed manner and on payment of the prescribed fee, be entitled to be registered under the principal Act, if the Council are satisfied on a report of the Admission Committee that his application for registration was made within two years from the commencement of this Act and that at the commencement of this Act he was, or had been, practising as an architect in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, any person who had, say, attached his name to half a dozen jerrybuilt houses and who could prove that he had been practising as an architect,

would be entitled to claim registration, and, according to the words of the Bill, could not be refused. It is ridiculous to say that the standards and qualifications will be raised by the passing of the Bill. I could give the names and addresses of ex-building trade superintendents, operatives really, who obtained jobs as building inspectors under local authorities and who, on reaching the age limit and becoming superannuated, went into architecture and put out all kinds of plans. They would be entitled as architects to registration under the Bill.

Mr. Bossom: Mr. Bossom rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. McEntee: Their ability would remain approximately the same after registration, and there is no guarantee that as a consequence of the passing of the Bill the standard of education in the architectural profession would be in any way raised. I am sorry, therefore, that for that reason I must oppose the Bill. It has been said by—

It being Four of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at Four o'Clock until Monday next, 12th April.